What do you think?
Rate this book
Unworthy Republic: The Dispossession of Native Americans and the Road to Indian Territory
A masterful and unsettling history of “Indian Removal,” the forced migration of Native Americans across the Mississippi River in the 1830s and the state-sponsored theft of their lands.
In May 1830, the United States formally launched a policy to expel Native Americans from the East to territories west of the Mississippi River. Justified as a humanitarian enterprise, the undertaking was to be systematic and rational, overseen by Washington’s small but growing bureaucracy. But as the policy unfolded over the next decade, thousands of Native Americans died under the federal government’s auspices, and thousands of others lost their possessions and homelands in an orgy of fraud, intimidation, and violence. Unworthy Republic reveals how expulsion became national policy and describes the chaotic and deadly results of the operation to deport 80,000 men, women, and children.
Drawing on firsthand accounts and the voluminous records produced by the federal government, Saunt’s deeply researched book argues that Indian Removal, as advocates of the policy called it, was not an inevitable chapter in U.S. expansion across the continent. Rather, it was a fiercely contested political act designed to secure new lands for the expansion of slavery and to consolidate the power of the southern states. Indigenous peoples fought relentlessly against the policy, while many U.S. citizens insisted that it was a betrayal of the nation’s values. When Congress passed the act by a razor-thin margin, it authorized one of the first state-sponsored mass deportations in the modern era, marking a turning point for native peoples and for the United States.
In telling this gripping story, Saunt shows how the politics and economics of white supremacy lay at the heart of the expulsion of Native Americans, how corruption, greed, and administrative indifference and incompetence contributed to the debacle of its implementation, and how the consequences still resonate today.
416 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 24, 2020
470 people are currently reading
11587 people want to read
About the author
Claudio Saunt
6 books50 followersClaudio Saunt is the Richard B. Russell Professor in American History at the University of Georgia. He is the author of award-winning books, including A New Order of Things; Black, White, and Indian; and West of the Revolution. He lives in Athens, Georgia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 314 reviews
January 1, 2023
This book is appropriately enraging. If you’ve read Killers of the Flower Moon then you might like this book. Flower Moon is about the shakedown by white grifters of Osage Indians in the early 20th century who held the rights to vast oil reserves. The canvas of Unworthy Republic is much broader. It tells with compelling detail the story of how the United States government threw American Indians off their sacred ancestral lands in the eastern U.S. so they could use these unbelievably fertile lands for cotton. All the white criminals are named here, their heinous actions cataloged. Not surprisingly it was all carried out under the administration of Andrew Jackson: U.S. President (1829–1837), slaver and murderous general in charge of the 1813-14 U.S.-Creek War.
The government abrogated treaties with Native Americans and kicked them off their lands, and it did so with imperialistic impunity. All the finagling bureaucratic and twisted legal maneuvering is here given voice. There was no mechanism for dissent in this process. The U.S. did not even know where it was sending the Indians. There were no maps. Last minute excursion routes were spotty and almost never done by actual surveyors, which meant they were often treacherous if not lethal.
Moreover, allotments set out for eastern peoples’s moving west of the Mississippi infringed on the lands of heretofore unknown western tribes. What a debacle! Cholera caught up with the refugees and wiped them out in droves. Moreover because the government agents inexplicably moved their charges during the murderous cold of continental winters, the Indians froze to death in their thousands.
Greedy investors poured in to buy up the stolen land for a pittance, much of which was used for cotton cultivation. This I found the most sickening part of the story; that profits were being made without qualm off of those who had suffered abysmally and died. (Can this capitalist frenzy be equated now with an administration that seeks to “reopen” the plague-riddled economy despite tens of thousands of expected deaths? The argument can be made. But this is an aside, I don’t want to diminish the bitter experience of our trusting Native Americans.) Of those who decided they would not be removed from their ancestral lands, speculators sold it out from under them and kicked them off the land bodily, or exterminated them:
Of course the expropriated land would then be cultivated by black slaves. A unique part of this history is the explanation of how the two systems of dispossession—one negating individual liberty, the other taking land needed for sustenance—worked hand in glove. A woefully sad tale but necessary because so rarely told. Moreover, it’s yet another great shame to bear for Americans.
Germany has the Holocaust to its shame; America has the extermination of its indigenous peoples, and the enslavement of persons of color to its shame.
The government abrogated treaties with Native Americans and kicked them off their lands, and it did so with imperialistic impunity. All the finagling bureaucratic and twisted legal maneuvering is here given voice. There was no mechanism for dissent in this process. The U.S. did not even know where it was sending the Indians. There were no maps. Last minute excursion routes were spotty and almost never done by actual surveyors, which meant they were often treacherous if not lethal.
Moreover, allotments set out for eastern peoples’s moving west of the Mississippi infringed on the lands of heretofore unknown western tribes. What a debacle! Cholera caught up with the refugees and wiped them out in droves. Moreover because the government agents inexplicably moved their charges during the murderous cold of continental winters, the Indians froze to death in their thousands.
Greedy investors poured in to buy up the stolen land for a pittance, much of which was used for cotton cultivation. This I found the most sickening part of the story; that profits were being made without qualm off of those who had suffered abysmally and died. (Can this capitalist frenzy be equated now with an administration that seeks to “reopen” the plague-riddled economy despite tens of thousands of expected deaths? The argument can be made. But this is an aside, I don’t want to diminish the bitter experience of our trusting Native Americans.) Of those who decided they would not be removed from their ancestral lands, speculators sold it out from under them and kicked them off the land bodily, or exterminated them:
”The savage,” proclaimed one army officer, “should be no longer permitted to pollute our soil with his foot.” The country was “infected.” Week by week, militia tracked down the desperate refugees [Creek peoples]. They killed twelve on July 2, twenty-two on July 15, twenty-two on July 24, eighteen on July 26, and eighteen to twenty-three on August 13 [1836]. They followed trails of blood and corpses, seizing the possessions dropped by the survivors —quilts, cloth, powder, and lead. Weak with hunger or simply too young, some Creek children could not keep up with the pace of flight. Their mothers smothered them to death. On occasion, women suffocated the crying babies to prevent them from revealing their locations. Nearing capture, they sometimes killed their children and committed suicide. (p. 253)
Of course the expropriated land would then be cultivated by black slaves. A unique part of this history is the explanation of how the two systems of dispossession—one negating individual liberty, the other taking land needed for sustenance—worked hand in glove. A woefully sad tale but necessary because so rarely told. Moreover, it’s yet another great shame to bear for Americans.
Germany has the Holocaust to its shame; America has the extermination of its indigenous peoples, and the enslavement of persons of color to its shame.
October 18, 2020
Since I finished this book a few weeks ago, I cannot stop talking about it and thinking about. This one is a must-read for every American. You think you know about Native American dispossession. I actually teach some of these pivotal Supreme Court cases that led to Native Americans losing their land so I thought I would know enough about what happened, but I was blown away by this book. The book not only covers all the law and politics and debates that led to dispossession, it talks about how exactly it was done and I guess, honestly, I never really thought about what it took to take people's land and occupy it and then make sure those people were marched out of your state. And the thing is--and this book makes it crystal clear--that people KNEW this was a horrible, unjust, and evil thing to do. And they did it anyway because they wanted the land. The kick in the stomach is at the end of the book when Saunt follows the wealth and riches that these thieves (the stealers of Native land) still hold. Their heirs are still millionaires and I cannot imagine why we let them keep this money still. Read this book and weep for what this country did to Native Americans.
February 16, 2021
This is an excellent study of the dispossession of Native Americans, mainly during the 1830s, but covering the political and economic landscape shortly before and after those years. The author, Claudio Saunt, is the Richard B. Russell Professor in American History at the University of Georgia. The narrative is heavily laden with facts and as I am recently engaged in nonfiction endeavors, it took me a couple of weeks to plow through, making notes, and absorbing what I could. This was a challenging read for me, but for most serious readers of nonfiction, I don’t think such would be the case. The author presents the material in an engaging way, although some ‘stories’ appear in a truncated fashion and I found myself looking up more information.
In the introduction Saunt explains that he will use three words to describe U.S. policy regarding indigenous Americans in the 1830s. “Deportation,” “expulsion,” and as stated by the author, “When appropriate, I use a third term, borrowed from the perpetrators themselves, who on certain occasions referred to their goal as one of “extermination.”” Saunt makes three arguments. First, he makes the assertion that the dispossession of Native Americans was unprecedented as a state-administered process. Yes, expulsions had happened before in history through wars and other means but he considers this the first in modern times. Unfortunately, the U.S. model would be followed by other colonial powers. Saunt’s second argument is that “the state-sponsored expulsion of the 1830s was a turning point for indigenous peoples and for the United States. Expulsion was “the worst evil that can befall them,” stated Neha Micco to his fellow Creek citizens.” Saunt’s third point is that things didn’t have to go this way. Different choices could have been made. He writes, it is a truism that nothing in history is predetermined.” This was an interesting argument and one that I had not considered. His placing the argument in his introduction made me see the text in a different light as I read, especially the politics. Inevitable thoughts follow. What would our country be like now if things had been different?
Embroiled as we are in our own heated politics, I found the narrative most fascinating as Saunt described the Congressional deliberations concerning the Indian Removal Act of 1830. The southern states were decidedly in favor of dispossession of Native Americans due to their own self-interests. They wanted to greedily take the land for growing cotton which also meant the expansion of slavery. How smooth and disingenuous their arguments. Planter politicians were a political force to be reckoned with, holding forth with righteous oratory. The Indians were in decline, they argued; to move them west of the Mississippi would be a humanitarian move in their favor. There, they would prosper. Among the whites, the Native Americans would only decline. Some northern states also supported “expulsion,” as they were interested in the land as a speculative venture, and the cotton business as a means of increasing their own wealth. It was their capital that poured into the cotton plantations. “The debate brought the House to a fever pitch.” In the end, the House of Representatives voted 102 to 97 in favor of the Indian Removal Act. The Senate passed it with a 28 to 19 vote, and Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act into law on May 28, 1830.
I learned of the Cherokee Indians removal and the “Trail of Tears” many years ago. I’m sure I learned some of the context, but Saunt is thorough and I learned so much more. How white people moved onto Creek, Chickasaw, Seminole, Cherokee, and other tribal lands before they could even get moved out. How some were forced out of their homes without being able to take anything with them. How cholera and malaria accompanied some of the forced removals, making steamboats death traps, the camps they made along the way and the trails they walked littered with graves. How intelligent and well spoken Native Americans like the educated Cherokee Chief, John Ross, made their appeals to Congress and the President of the United States to no avail. How Osceola of the Creek Nation, aged nine-years-old was sent fleeing along with his mother in the wake of devastation by Andrew Jackson’s raids of Indian villages in 1813. He grew up to become a warrior and leader of Seminole Indians making their mark in a kind of guerilla warfare against the army that had been sent to rout them. Saunt also connects the dots between white attitudes about Native Americans and African Americans. He writes, “The anxieties of white southerners about their tenuous control of hundreds of thousands of enslaved people were surpassed only by their interest in profiting from native dispossession.” All was based on their feelings of supremacy and other races as inferior.
This book was an invaluable investment of my time and has made me even more interested in this shameful period of our history. I came to the unfortunate conclusion that much about race and the self-interest of politics still resonates today, down to the bullfrog’s righteous oratory.
In the introduction Saunt explains that he will use three words to describe U.S. policy regarding indigenous Americans in the 1830s. “Deportation,” “expulsion,” and as stated by the author, “When appropriate, I use a third term, borrowed from the perpetrators themselves, who on certain occasions referred to their goal as one of “extermination.”” Saunt makes three arguments. First, he makes the assertion that the dispossession of Native Americans was unprecedented as a state-administered process. Yes, expulsions had happened before in history through wars and other means but he considers this the first in modern times. Unfortunately, the U.S. model would be followed by other colonial powers. Saunt’s second argument is that “the state-sponsored expulsion of the 1830s was a turning point for indigenous peoples and for the United States. Expulsion was “the worst evil that can befall them,” stated Neha Micco to his fellow Creek citizens.” Saunt’s third point is that things didn’t have to go this way. Different choices could have been made. He writes, it is a truism that nothing in history is predetermined.” This was an interesting argument and one that I had not considered. His placing the argument in his introduction made me see the text in a different light as I read, especially the politics. Inevitable thoughts follow. What would our country be like now if things had been different?
Embroiled as we are in our own heated politics, I found the narrative most fascinating as Saunt described the Congressional deliberations concerning the Indian Removal Act of 1830. The southern states were decidedly in favor of dispossession of Native Americans due to their own self-interests. They wanted to greedily take the land for growing cotton which also meant the expansion of slavery. How smooth and disingenuous their arguments. Planter politicians were a political force to be reckoned with, holding forth with righteous oratory. The Indians were in decline, they argued; to move them west of the Mississippi would be a humanitarian move in their favor. There, they would prosper. Among the whites, the Native Americans would only decline. Some northern states also supported “expulsion,” as they were interested in the land as a speculative venture, and the cotton business as a means of increasing their own wealth. It was their capital that poured into the cotton plantations. “The debate brought the House to a fever pitch.” In the end, the House of Representatives voted 102 to 97 in favor of the Indian Removal Act. The Senate passed it with a 28 to 19 vote, and Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act into law on May 28, 1830.
I learned of the Cherokee Indians removal and the “Trail of Tears” many years ago. I’m sure I learned some of the context, but Saunt is thorough and I learned so much more. How white people moved onto Creek, Chickasaw, Seminole, Cherokee, and other tribal lands before they could even get moved out. How some were forced out of their homes without being able to take anything with them. How cholera and malaria accompanied some of the forced removals, making steamboats death traps, the camps they made along the way and the trails they walked littered with graves. How intelligent and well spoken Native Americans like the educated Cherokee Chief, John Ross, made their appeals to Congress and the President of the United States to no avail. How Osceola of the Creek Nation, aged nine-years-old was sent fleeing along with his mother in the wake of devastation by Andrew Jackson’s raids of Indian villages in 1813. He grew up to become a warrior and leader of Seminole Indians making their mark in a kind of guerilla warfare against the army that had been sent to rout them. Saunt also connects the dots between white attitudes about Native Americans and African Americans. He writes, “The anxieties of white southerners about their tenuous control of hundreds of thousands of enslaved people were surpassed only by their interest in profiting from native dispossession.” All was based on their feelings of supremacy and other races as inferior.
This book was an invaluable investment of my time and has made me even more interested in this shameful period of our history. I came to the unfortunate conclusion that much about race and the self-interest of politics still resonates today, down to the bullfrog’s righteous oratory.
September 3, 2022
Claudio Saunt's work Unworthy Republic: The Dispossession of Native Americans and the Road to Indian Territory chronicles the eviction of American Indians from their homelands and the extermination of many in the the 1830's and 1840's. Some of this history was known to me, and some of it was not. What I found especially interesting was the link between Indian removal and the expansion of slavery in the south.
Planters used the votes accorded to them for owning slaves to swell the number of votes in favor of The Indian Removal Act, which passed the House by a very narrow margin--5 votes. The plantation owners wanted this fertile farmland for cotton planting and to increase their slave holdings
"The 'Act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi' gave the president the authority to mark off territory 'west of the Mississippi' and to exchange it with indigenous people living within the bounds of states or territories for a whole or part of their current lands. Deported families were to receive payment for their improvements and 'aid and assistance' during and for one year after expulsion. . . . the House proposed an amendment accepted by the Senate: 'Nothing in this act contained shall be construed as authorizing or directing the violation of any existing treaty between the United States and any of the Indian tribes.' Congress appropriated the absurdly small sum of $500,000 to carry out the provisions of the law."
And as we know, that amendment was not honored. Those in favor of Indian removal portrayed the Indian population as dwindling, that they would not survive unless moved and assisted in civilized living in their new home. They created a fiction that the indigenous population would willingly leave their homes. By the mid 1830's U.S. troops were force marching people, some in chains, and pursuing starving families fleeing from them.
The U.S. government had no plan for moving this sheer mass of people. In the end, it cost the U.S. approximately $75 million (equivalent to $1 trillion today). To add insult to injury, the U.S. government deducted the cost of the deportation from the monies these people were supposed to receive from the sale of each community's tribal lands, including the tents that the soldiers used (when sometimes the indigenous people had no shelter). No medical care was provided and food supplies were insufficient.
U.S. speculators were so bold as to begin prying the boards off of homes before the indigenous people had moved out and they even moved in and completely took over their properties while the indigenous rightful owners were away visiting relatives. There was plenty of duplicity, and land speculators made fortunes which their descendants continue to benefit from generations later.
I could go on, and will stop here. If this subject interests you, I suggest you pick up Saunt's well written account of this travesty in U.S. history.
January 24, 2020
So, in the 1800's there was this genocidal maniac President of the United States named Andrew Jackson (god bless America, his portrait is once again hanging in the white house {and he was very handsome for an old guy}, as it hangs on all our 20 dollar bills) and he wanted all the native people killed or sent east of the Mississippi (pretty much Mexico at the time). It took a weird convergence of good natured northerners who were doing it for the Lamanite's own good and blatantly racist southerners to pull it off, but he pulled it off. To make a long story short, this guy (and his compatriots in Congress and the Supreme Court) says "Hey, man. I'd like your land, but I'm a good Christian, so I'd appreciate it if you leave. I'll give you 10 bucks or so. And please don't make this uncomfortable, because if you don't leave we'll kill you. I mean, imagine the growth in GDP if we put our slaves on your land. Etc. Etc." But, seriously. This was a disturbing book, mostly because it is true. Was it better to fight The Man in the Supreme Court like the Cherokees did (and lost) or to die after taking out many of their oppressors like the Seminoles? Who knows? It all ended up the same and the Glorious South was made safe for obesity and stupidity. Good book. It is serious and scholarly, unlike my review (and it mentions a native named Whiteman Killer, which would be a fine name for a rapper). Thank you to goodreads and the publisher for the free copy.
July 27, 2020
i will admit that i have an intellectual kink for history books that, in eyebrow-frying detail, lay out how completely the USA is founded on greed hate and hardheartedness. yUnworthy Republic is pretty dry if you're seeking personality driven history. it does have a narrative though: white slaveowners and their political allies conspired to rob native americans of their land and lives, and when robbery failed switched over to regular murder. this is not exactly news but saunt uses a lot of different modes of history - a chapter on how technology and cholera amplified epidemics among the displaced, repeated surveys of the bureaucratic nature of the 19th century genocide/dispossession of southeastern indigenous peoples, a grim sense of humor in sketching the absurd dignity that everyday people wielded in the 1830s, etc. this is not a sunny book but i feel measurably less ignorant having read it.
June 23, 2020
Incredibly meticulous and well researched book. The atrocities committed upon native inhabitants of present day U.S. by the government are unbelievable. The cognitive dissonance needed to comprehend the U.S policy toward Native Americans is just too damn much. Mass slaughter and dispossession were not only legal and legally justifiable, they were also considered the most humane policies. Yes, the white colonizers got to pat themselves on the back and boast about their “humanity” while committing unspeakable atrocities to other human beings.
It’s disgusting and shameful, and this book should be read today, within the present context. The Jackson administration is eerily like the Trump administration. Some similarities are particularly jarring. And it should go without saying that America needs to confront the truth and the own up to its role in and contribution to crimes against humanity that have been (and in many ways continue to be) institutionalized.
It’s disgusting and shameful, and this book should be read today, within the present context. The Jackson administration is eerily like the Trump administration. Some similarities are particularly jarring. And it should go without saying that America needs to confront the truth and the own up to its role in and contribution to crimes against humanity that have been (and in many ways continue to be) institutionalized.
May 27, 2021
Five stars for content, two stars for readability.
When I learned about the Trail of Tears and Indian Removal in primary school, I remember it being portrayed pretty simplistically. It was a bad thing, of course, that killed a lot of people. The Cherokee lived in one place, then the government said they had to move, so they left. I don't know that we ever even got into Worcester v. Georgia and certainly never talked about the Seminole Wars or any of the reasons why the American government sentenced so many people to exile or death.
The main benefit to me of Unworthy Republic is as a catalogue of how complicated history actually is. To pick one example, all of the tribes targeted for removal resisted vigorously through various means, The Cherokee had their own newspaper, published in Cherokee and English, through which they made their case, and multiple tribes sent delegations to Washington in order to cite the language of the treaties to which they had agreed, promising them their lands in seemingly-final terms. Nor were they alone in this--there were non-native interests on both sides, from New Englanders who wrote about how removing the tribes from their ancestral lands would make a mockery of America's claim to freedom and liberty to Southern slavers who played up the danger of letting the tribes remai--many tribes had sided with the British in the War of 1812--and made various ludicrous arguments that I still hear on the internet, like that all non-Christians are liars because, as Georgia senator John Forsyth said, native peoples did not believe in eternal punishment and therefore could not be counted on to tell the truth.
Through the entire saga is the legacy of slavery, the stain on America from the beginning and the source of most of its current problems. Natives controlled one fourth of the land in the state of Georgia, including some of its richest farmland, and the slavers wanted that land for themselves. It was a close vote in the House that passed the Indian Removal Act, 101 to 97 after three votes switched, but the entire South supported it and as soon as they could Southerners began moving into native territory and taking their lands, often before or without any formal process--there are a myriad of accounts of natives having their yards plowed under by white farmers or being on a trip and coming home to find someone else living in their house. Having taken the lands of the natives with no recourse and with little (if any) compensation--most of the money paid to them for the lands was then billed for the cost of their removal--the South proceeded to make a killing growing cotton using using slave labor while the lands' former owners were shipped west.
It's a heart-rending story and difficult to read at many points, but the reason I give it three stars is not because it's emotionally hard to read--it's because it's wordy to the point of being exhaustive. There's never one example when twelve will do, and while there are cases when that shows the scale of the atrocities committed on the native peoples or the breadth of opinion found in America about the removal, most often it's a bunch of similar quotes, right next to each other, that blurred together. I'd often find my attention slipping as I read yet another example of houses stolen, diseases ravaging migrating peoples, or army officers profiteering or imposing brutal austerity during the course of carrying out the removal. Unworthy Republic is an excellent reference work, packed full of citations and quotes to show exactly how mendacious America was in its execution of the policy, but reading it was as tiring as reading an encyclopedia cover to cover--you'll learn a lot but your brain will hurt by the end of it.
Do I recommend this book? Yes, absolutely, even if as just another example of how slavery really is so terrible that it corrupted (and its influence still corrupts) nearly every act America undertook. But it's just not a very fun read and not just because of the subject material.
When I learned about the Trail of Tears and Indian Removal in primary school, I remember it being portrayed pretty simplistically. It was a bad thing, of course, that killed a lot of people. The Cherokee lived in one place, then the government said they had to move, so they left. I don't know that we ever even got into Worcester v. Georgia and certainly never talked about the Seminole Wars or any of the reasons why the American government sentenced so many people to exile or death.
The main benefit to me of Unworthy Republic is as a catalogue of how complicated history actually is. To pick one example, all of the tribes targeted for removal resisted vigorously through various means, The Cherokee had their own newspaper, published in Cherokee and English, through which they made their case, and multiple tribes sent delegations to Washington in order to cite the language of the treaties to which they had agreed, promising them their lands in seemingly-final terms. Nor were they alone in this--there were non-native interests on both sides, from New Englanders who wrote about how removing the tribes from their ancestral lands would make a mockery of America's claim to freedom and liberty to Southern slavers who played up the danger of letting the tribes remai--many tribes had sided with the British in the War of 1812--and made various ludicrous arguments that I still hear on the internet, like that all non-Christians are liars because, as Georgia senator John Forsyth said, native peoples did not believe in eternal punishment and therefore could not be counted on to tell the truth.
Through the entire saga is the legacy of slavery, the stain on America from the beginning and the source of most of its current problems. Natives controlled one fourth of the land in the state of Georgia, including some of its richest farmland, and the slavers wanted that land for themselves. It was a close vote in the House that passed the Indian Removal Act, 101 to 97 after three votes switched, but the entire South supported it and as soon as they could Southerners began moving into native territory and taking their lands, often before or without any formal process--there are a myriad of accounts of natives having their yards plowed under by white farmers or being on a trip and coming home to find someone else living in their house. Having taken the lands of the natives with no recourse and with little (if any) compensation--most of the money paid to them for the lands was then billed for the cost of their removal--the South proceeded to make a killing growing cotton using using slave labor while the lands' former owners were shipped west.
It's a heart-rending story and difficult to read at many points, but the reason I give it three stars is not because it's emotionally hard to read--it's because it's wordy to the point of being exhaustive. There's never one example when twelve will do, and while there are cases when that shows the scale of the atrocities committed on the native peoples or the breadth of opinion found in America about the removal, most often it's a bunch of similar quotes, right next to each other, that blurred together. I'd often find my attention slipping as I read yet another example of houses stolen, diseases ravaging migrating peoples, or army officers profiteering or imposing brutal austerity during the course of carrying out the removal. Unworthy Republic is an excellent reference work, packed full of citations and quotes to show exactly how mendacious America was in its execution of the policy, but reading it was as tiring as reading an encyclopedia cover to cover--you'll learn a lot but your brain will hurt by the end of it.
Do I recommend this book? Yes, absolutely, even if as just another example of how slavery really is so terrible that it corrupted (and its influence still corrupts) nearly every act America undertook. But it's just not a very fun read and not just because of the subject material.
March 14, 2021
As many other reviewers have noted, this is an exhaustive, well-written, and emotionally draining history. This is the kind of history we should be teaching in our schools, rather than the sanitized adoration heaped on the founders and builders of the American nation. Saunt draws very clearly the connection between the expansion of the slave-holding South and the expulsion/extermination of indigenous peoples, both firmly rooted in white supremist ideology.
The book is difficult to read--occasionally because the information is so dense, but mostly because it's heart-wrenching. The unapologetic cruelty, racism, and greed of those who devised and carried out the expulsion and extermination of the indigenous peoples east of the Mississippi infuses every single page. I had to take breaks from reading to regain my equilibrium.
As if the atrocities recounted here weren't enough, it is shocking how much of the political rhetoric of that time sounds like the political rhetoric of today, down to a movement to build a wall to make sure brown people stayed in the West. However enlightened we think we are today, we're really not. The white supremacy making such a strong showing in recent years is very clearly an iteration of the white supremacy that undergirded the founding and expansion of the American nation.
I can't say you'll enjoy reading this book. You won't. If you have an iota of empathy it will make you want to weep and will fill you with outrage. That's exactly why you should read it. Denying the past of the U.S. hasn't led us to do better, but we can hope that confronting it will.
The book is difficult to read--occasionally because the information is so dense, but mostly because it's heart-wrenching. The unapologetic cruelty, racism, and greed of those who devised and carried out the expulsion and extermination of the indigenous peoples east of the Mississippi infuses every single page. I had to take breaks from reading to regain my equilibrium.
As if the atrocities recounted here weren't enough, it is shocking how much of the political rhetoric of that time sounds like the political rhetoric of today, down to a movement to build a wall to make sure brown people stayed in the West. However enlightened we think we are today, we're really not. The white supremacy making such a strong showing in recent years is very clearly an iteration of the white supremacy that undergirded the founding and expansion of the American nation.
I can't say you'll enjoy reading this book. You won't. If you have an iota of empathy it will make you want to weep and will fill you with outrage. That's exactly why you should read it. Denying the past of the U.S. hasn't led us to do better, but we can hope that confronting it will.
July 28, 2020
We always talk of slavery as the "original sin" of America, but dispossession of the Native Americans was also an original sin. The Decade of Deportation (1830s) isn't something we learn much about in American History. Yet is it an important chapter and this book will do much to correct that error. It was a horrific chapter, all resulting from greed and the votes of 5 Congressmen who agreed with Andrew Johnson that deportation to the West was the solution to the Indian Question. Johnson has to go down in history as one of the worst Presidents. Statues to him need to come down now.
September 12, 2020
This book tells what should be an incredible story, but is instead as American a story as one can get. Paternalistic (often faux paternalistic) racism is only one part of the story. Greed, bureaucratic limitations, almost everyone acting despite conflicts of interest, the expansion of slavery, government, private, and personal incompetence and carelessness that rises to the point of gross negligence — it’s all here. My only criticism of the book is more my problem than the book’s: too much information from a writer who is passionate about this issue. A 4.5.
April 7, 2021
I was somewhat underwhelmed by Steve Inskeep's Jacksonland: President Andrew Jackson, Cherokee Chief John Ross, and a Great American Land Grab, so I sought out this more recently-published book for a less folksy, more scholarly look at Indian Removal in the 1830s. And I'm glad I did.
Saunt provides a very thorough, eye-opening look at the Indian Removal Act of 1830, encompassing the stories of the politicians who advocated for it, the landowners and financiers who profited from it, the Native Americans who suffered from it, and the often bungling bureaucrats who carried it out.
The shorthand version of the story that most people remember is that the government decided to expel the Native Americans from their lands east of the Mississippi, and off they went on the Trail of Tears. But Saunt's work fills in all of the gaps. The Trail of Tears doesn't occur until late in his book, because not only were other tribes expelled before the Cherokee, but Saunt describes how bureaucrats first had to identify and survey the western lands to which the deportees were to be sent, figure out how to get them there, and how to pay for it all. Needless to say, it didn't go as smoothly - and many Native Americans didn't go as willingly - as advocates had hoped.
One of the strengths of the book is how Saunt shows how the issues of Indian Removal and slavery were intertwined and can't be considered separately. While slavery did exist in the North to a certain extent, and Native Americans were expelled from the North as well, the South is where slavery and Indian Removal were most prevalent. And slavery, Saunt paraphrases Thomas Jefferson as saying, "turned planters into despots who were habituated to ruling but not being ruled." That's what emboldened southern slaveowners to ignore Native Americans' rights, push for the Indian Removal Act to advance their own interests, defy court rulings that didn't go their way, and even threaten secession if need be to get what they wanted.
And the end result of Indian Removal was the expansion of slavery into former Native American lands, a booming cotton crop, and a corresponding increased reliance on slavery - putting the lie to the idea that slavery would eventually just die out on its own. So you could almost draw a direct line between the Indian Removal Act that strengthened slavery, and the Civil War that was needed to end it.
If anything, I thought the book was too short and I would have liked for it to be even more thorough in its coverage. There's little background about the generations of mistrust between American settlers and Native Americans that set the stage for this final showdown over the remaining Native American land. European settlers who showed up in America and staked their claim may have been the initial instigators of the conflict, but Native American warriors could be pretty brutal in battle, and tended to side with the United States' enemies in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. So without the benefit of our modern-day hindsight, you could see how this would fuel the argument at the time that Whites and Native Americans simply could not peacefully coexist. Native Americans were seen as a problem that needed to be solved, so the stage seemed set for a final clash of some sort.
Andrew Jackson's role in the events of the time also is not really explored - rather than being portrayed as the instigator of the Indian Removal policy, he plays a somewhat passive role in the book, as a president installed by Indian Removal advocates who needed an ally in the White House who would help push things along.
But Saunt does provide a very detailed look at a very specific time period. It's unflinching, but not in a judgmental, revisionist-history, Howard Zinn kind of way. Ultimately, as compared to the triumph of the "good guys" in the Civil War that is so well-studied today, this time period a few decades earlier is little remembered by the general public, Saunt concludes, because "expulsion was the war the slaveholders won." And in this case, as in so many others, the history was written by the victors.
Saunt provides a very thorough, eye-opening look at the Indian Removal Act of 1830, encompassing the stories of the politicians who advocated for it, the landowners and financiers who profited from it, the Native Americans who suffered from it, and the often bungling bureaucrats who carried it out.
The shorthand version of the story that most people remember is that the government decided to expel the Native Americans from their lands east of the Mississippi, and off they went on the Trail of Tears. But Saunt's work fills in all of the gaps. The Trail of Tears doesn't occur until late in his book, because not only were other tribes expelled before the Cherokee, but Saunt describes how bureaucrats first had to identify and survey the western lands to which the deportees were to be sent, figure out how to get them there, and how to pay for it all. Needless to say, it didn't go as smoothly - and many Native Americans didn't go as willingly - as advocates had hoped.
One of the strengths of the book is how Saunt shows how the issues of Indian Removal and slavery were intertwined and can't be considered separately. While slavery did exist in the North to a certain extent, and Native Americans were expelled from the North as well, the South is where slavery and Indian Removal were most prevalent. And slavery, Saunt paraphrases Thomas Jefferson as saying, "turned planters into despots who were habituated to ruling but not being ruled." That's what emboldened southern slaveowners to ignore Native Americans' rights, push for the Indian Removal Act to advance their own interests, defy court rulings that didn't go their way, and even threaten secession if need be to get what they wanted.
And the end result of Indian Removal was the expansion of slavery into former Native American lands, a booming cotton crop, and a corresponding increased reliance on slavery - putting the lie to the idea that slavery would eventually just die out on its own. So you could almost draw a direct line between the Indian Removal Act that strengthened slavery, and the Civil War that was needed to end it.
If anything, I thought the book was too short and I would have liked for it to be even more thorough in its coverage. There's little background about the generations of mistrust between American settlers and Native Americans that set the stage for this final showdown over the remaining Native American land. European settlers who showed up in America and staked their claim may have been the initial instigators of the conflict, but Native American warriors could be pretty brutal in battle, and tended to side with the United States' enemies in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. So without the benefit of our modern-day hindsight, you could see how this would fuel the argument at the time that Whites and Native Americans simply could not peacefully coexist. Native Americans were seen as a problem that needed to be solved, so the stage seemed set for a final clash of some sort.
Andrew Jackson's role in the events of the time also is not really explored - rather than being portrayed as the instigator of the Indian Removal policy, he plays a somewhat passive role in the book, as a president installed by Indian Removal advocates who needed an ally in the White House who would help push things along.
But Saunt does provide a very detailed look at a very specific time period. It's unflinching, but not in a judgmental, revisionist-history, Howard Zinn kind of way. Ultimately, as compared to the triumph of the "good guys" in the Civil War that is so well-studied today, this time period a few decades earlier is little remembered by the general public, Saunt concludes, because "expulsion was the war the slaveholders won." And in this case, as in so many others, the history was written by the victors.
August 3, 2022
If, like me, your knowledge of Indian Removal (the term by those at the time) is mostly limited to what you encountered in American history survey classes "Unworthy Republic" is a recommended read.
I had previously had a somewhat simplistic view of the process focused mostly on the physical trek of thousands of Indians west across the Mississippi. Saunt adds much needed depth to the picture. The diversity of how the different tribes lived, from subsistence farming in small communities to owning slaves and operating massive plantations no different from white-owned operations. The way the Indians responded to the attempts at removal also varied greatly. Some felt resistance was futile and left quickly, others fought back with arms, and others resisted via the courts and legal petitions.
As I read the book I kept thinking about George W. Bush's Iraq War. Like that war Indian Removal was motivated by greed, but was pitched as a bunch of humanitarian nonsense. Rather than admit to a land grab the officials framed removal as an attempt to protect the Indians from conflict with whites. Like the Iraq war the entire enterprise was run through with grift. From those equipping and planning the actual removal inflating government contracts to those handling the paperwork carving out allotments grabbing the prime pieces for themselves. And like George W Bush's Iraq War the government effort was so inept it would be laughable if the results weren't so tragic,
I had previously had a somewhat simplistic view of the process focused mostly on the physical trek of thousands of Indians west across the Mississippi. Saunt adds much needed depth to the picture. The diversity of how the different tribes lived, from subsistence farming in small communities to owning slaves and operating massive plantations no different from white-owned operations. The way the Indians responded to the attempts at removal also varied greatly. Some felt resistance was futile and left quickly, others fought back with arms, and others resisted via the courts and legal petitions.
As I read the book I kept thinking about George W. Bush's Iraq War. Like that war Indian Removal was motivated by greed, but was pitched as a bunch of humanitarian nonsense. Rather than admit to a land grab the officials framed removal as an attempt to protect the Indians from conflict with whites. Like the Iraq war the entire enterprise was run through with grift. From those equipping and planning the actual removal inflating government contracts to those handling the paperwork carving out allotments grabbing the prime pieces for themselves. And like George W Bush's Iraq War the government effort was so inept it would be laughable if the results weren't so tragic,
October 9, 2020
I love history, especially when it illuminates a part of our collective pasts I have only a passing acquaintance with. But like most Americans, I was fed a line of bull through high school, a history that painted America as ALWAYS pristine and ALWAYS pure, an impossibility. Those history educators, often well-meaning, turned me off to history. they made it seem boring.
Lucky for me, I took history courses in college. Those learned men and women knew the past, intellectual, and economic history on a different level. They created a history fan... when the writingl is factual, well-documented and unflinching in it's judgment, trusting what they find over the "company line." And the National Book Award finalist UNWORTHY REPUBLIC by Claudio Saunt takes over where those professors left off.
In UNWORTHY, Saunt tells the oft-neglected truth about the Jacksonian age and the American policy of "Indian Removal" that took place in the 19th century. It's a story remarkable for its brutality and disregard of Native American's rights, lives and livelihoods. And while he stops short of calling American actions a "genocide" as many left-wing radicals do, he's very clear that this was NOT business as usual. This was not a gentle process of voluntary relocation. Instead, it was brutal and orchestrated using the latest methods of "scientific management," serving as a model Hitler and Stalin used while displacing their own native, minority, and dissident populations.
As I read, I found myself by degrees horrified by not only the past but by the clear resonances that Jacksonian brutality has to the Trump Department of Homeland Security's mistreatment of migrant families. It's scary as if America had changed exactly zero in two hundred years, with 2020's nativist whites substituting raids against 'Latin Immigrants' for their 1820's counterpart's rants about 'the Indian Problem.'
Still, the book takes a comprehensive view of the problem, not from the viewpoint of the eastern seaboard, but from the viewpoints of both native Americans, forcibly dispossesd of their land, and often robbed blind by government agents sent to "protect them." And draws incredible parallels between slavery and the desire for the Whites in America to expand. But not into 'virgin land,' but instead land stolen from its rightful owners, much of it ceases by greedy cotton plantation owners looking to expand their plantations. And I really liked how Saunt calls these plantations what they were: slave labor camps.
All told. a well-written if emotionally and intellectually challenging read, as it will make the honest reader take stock of the mistakes we Americans have made in the past. And that awareness will help us avoid those mistakes in the future. For as George Santayana points out, those who remain ignorant of our history are doomed ot repeat it.
Five-stars.
Lucky for me, I took history courses in college. Those learned men and women knew the past, intellectual, and economic history on a different level. They created a history fan... when the writingl is factual, well-documented and unflinching in it's judgment, trusting what they find over the "company line." And the National Book Award finalist UNWORTHY REPUBLIC by Claudio Saunt takes over where those professors left off.
In UNWORTHY, Saunt tells the oft-neglected truth about the Jacksonian age and the American policy of "Indian Removal" that took place in the 19th century. It's a story remarkable for its brutality and disregard of Native American's rights, lives and livelihoods. And while he stops short of calling American actions a "genocide" as many left-wing radicals do, he's very clear that this was NOT business as usual. This was not a gentle process of voluntary relocation. Instead, it was brutal and orchestrated using the latest methods of "scientific management," serving as a model Hitler and Stalin used while displacing their own native, minority, and dissident populations.
As I read, I found myself by degrees horrified by not only the past but by the clear resonances that Jacksonian brutality has to the Trump Department of Homeland Security's mistreatment of migrant families. It's scary as if America had changed exactly zero in two hundred years, with 2020's nativist whites substituting raids against 'Latin Immigrants' for their 1820's counterpart's rants about 'the Indian Problem.'
Still, the book takes a comprehensive view of the problem, not from the viewpoint of the eastern seaboard, but from the viewpoints of both native Americans, forcibly dispossesd of their land, and often robbed blind by government agents sent to "protect them." And draws incredible parallels between slavery and the desire for the Whites in America to expand. But not into 'virgin land,' but instead land stolen from its rightful owners, much of it ceases by greedy cotton plantation owners looking to expand their plantations. And I really liked how Saunt calls these plantations what they were: slave labor camps.
All told. a well-written if emotionally and intellectually challenging read, as it will make the honest reader take stock of the mistakes we Americans have made in the past. And that awareness will help us avoid those mistakes in the future. For as George Santayana points out, those who remain ignorant of our history are doomed ot repeat it.
Five-stars.
June 14, 2020
This was a book that I dreaded reading. The title says it all, it is the story BEHIND the "trail of tears" that we have all "peripherally" studied in our reading of history. It is the story of the removal of the Indian tribes from Georgia to lands beyond the Mississippi.
The book is wonderfully documented and the illustrations, maps and pictures give it an intimate feel. By "intimate," I mean that he inserts the readers into the horror of the uprooting of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole Indians from their ancestral lands to what was to be called "Indian territory."
The five tribes I note are called "the five civilized tribes" (although not in this book), these Indians lived like their neighbors. They had homes, farm land, farm implements, they were educated, they were stable and, presumably, happy.
But as history has taught us, the strong prey on the weak. The still-reprehensible slave-owning planters in Georgia wanted possession of the lands to move their "slave labor camps" (I love the author's term in calling a spade a spade) to allow the expansion of "king cotton."
Racism was rampant in the 1800's. Much more than in modern times. Congress authorized the "Indian Removal Act," and president Andrew Jackson signed it into law. Facing a supreme court decision, the court allowed it to go forward.
In short, the removal of the Indian nations was the worst theft imaginable. Essentially, everybody lost title to their lands, to their homes, even their furniture and possessions and driven away under the worst possible conditions. The price they received for their land was a small percentage of its worth and they were charged for their removal. The action reduced 80,00 people of the nations to wards of the government overnight.
There were good people in that time that opposed the land grab. Opposed the extension of slavery by the "Planter" class of the old south. But it seems that the south was just too strong. Those pleas fell on deaf ears.
Excellent book but a terrible subject.
The book is wonderfully documented and the illustrations, maps and pictures give it an intimate feel. By "intimate," I mean that he inserts the readers into the horror of the uprooting of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole Indians from their ancestral lands to what was to be called "Indian territory."
The five tribes I note are called "the five civilized tribes" (although not in this book), these Indians lived like their neighbors. They had homes, farm land, farm implements, they were educated, they were stable and, presumably, happy.
But as history has taught us, the strong prey on the weak. The still-reprehensible slave-owning planters in Georgia wanted possession of the lands to move their "slave labor camps" (I love the author's term in calling a spade a spade) to allow the expansion of "king cotton."
Racism was rampant in the 1800's. Much more than in modern times. Congress authorized the "Indian Removal Act," and president Andrew Jackson signed it into law. Facing a supreme court decision, the court allowed it to go forward.
In short, the removal of the Indian nations was the worst theft imaginable. Essentially, everybody lost title to their lands, to their homes, even their furniture and possessions and driven away under the worst possible conditions. The price they received for their land was a small percentage of its worth and they were charged for their removal. The action reduced 80,00 people of the nations to wards of the government overnight.
There were good people in that time that opposed the land grab. Opposed the extension of slavery by the "Planter" class of the old south. But it seems that the south was just too strong. Those pleas fell on deaf ears.
Excellent book but a terrible subject.
January 22, 2021
The theme of this book could easily be described as "however awful you this time was, it was infinitely more so." Saunt systematically presents one era in the continual US government policy of displacement and disenfranchisement of Native Americans, making use of a tidal wave of primary and secondary documents in one of the most well-documented historical accounts I have read. This does result in the "narrative" sometimes getting a bit bogged down simply through an overabundance of detail. Regardless, the picture this work paints is chilling. The wanton cruelty and ugly racist rhetoric is on display here in its full force. Saunt makes certain too that we understand the inextricable link between Native American dispossession and the slave economy. He minces no words on this. The Gone-with-the-Wind-evoking epithet "plantation" finds no place here. Instead, Saunt refers to them as what they were, slave labor camps. An important read about a shameful period of US history with implications that are still in place today.
October 12, 2020
Students in the US generally learn of the ‘trail of tears’ early on in grade and high school history, but one doesn’t get the full extent of the impact that occurred in the 1830’s in the forced movement of the native population in the Southern US. Though it isn’t surprising it is shocking at times. Another historical aspect that’s well covered in the book is the underreported war that was started with the Seminoles in FL, one that was like our own Vietnam in the swamps and backwaters in our own country.
October 30, 2020
A first-rate history in all ways. The 1830s mass dispossession/deportation/expulsion of indigenous Americans west of the Mississippi River was the war the Southerners won. Yet, it was not inevitable. Operating under the 3/5ths clause, the House of Representatives gave Southerners an additional 21 votes. The final tally was 102-97 in favor of "removal." Deportation was a political choice. Slaveowners, northern cotton factory owners, financiers all benefitted. But, at what expense - then and now? Excellent maps!
December 31, 2020
Except for "The New Jim Crow," this was by far the most infuriating thing I read all year. This history is just so brutal and so heart-breaking. Even though I knew the ultimate outcome of the Native Americans' fate, I found myself hoping that somehow justice would prevail and things would be different. The Seminoles kicking US government ass in Florida was one of the more satisfying parts of the book. We owe so much to Native Americans, but all the reparations in the world would be inadequate compensation for the tragedy and evil that the US inflicted on them.
February 26, 2020
I received a copy thru Goodreads giveaway.
This book taught me so much about what I already knew was a horrific time in history in the Southern USA. The historical background and detail of the Indian Removal Act is way beyond The Trail of Tears that is common knowledge. It is scholarly yet has a good flow and was a compelling read. In my advanced reader copy the maps were very small print so hopefully that is addressed in the final copy.
This book taught me so much about what I already knew was a horrific time in history in the Southern USA. The historical background and detail of the Indian Removal Act is way beyond The Trail of Tears that is common knowledge. It is scholarly yet has a good flow and was a compelling read. In my advanced reader copy the maps were very small print so hopefully that is addressed in the final copy.
July 20, 2020
Highly readable scholarship and required American History reading. It is the tragic recounting of the “Indian Removal Act” — 80,000 dispossessed and murdered. Get to know Andrew Jackson, the president that trump idolizes. Recognize the names of Indian hunters — Lumpkin, Clinch (as in Ft Clinch on Amelia Island), and a startling number of others that are “honored” in the names of streets, towns, counties, forts, and monuments.
September 7, 2021
4.5 Stars
Unworthy Republic by Claudio Saunt is chronicling the dispossession of Indigenous people in the United States of America. Saunt takes the reader along the various routes traveled by the Natives and shows how the Indigenous were either persuaded to move or forced off their ancestral lands in the South to Indian territory in the Midwest United States. The thesis of Unworthy Republic is threefold, Saunt shows the reader how deportation becomes an integral part of America’s early history, how the state sponsored deportation was a “turning point for indigenous peoples and for the United States,” and how deportation was not as inevitable as skewed history books have led many Americans to believe (Saunt xvii). The documentation used to prove these points is mainly primary – ranging from writings by Native Americans and legal proceedings to government official letters and diaries of American agents in the field. As a historian whose expertise is based in the sects of southern American history, Native American history, and Racial history in the United States Claudio Saunt creates Unworthy Republic as an intersectional literary piece. Viewpoints from all parties involved in the dispossession of Native Americans are culled into Unworthy Republic for a balanced look and to prove Saunt’s main thesis.
Unworthy Republic is divided into five main sections that tackle different aspects of Saunt’s thesis. The first section shows how deportation was not inevitable while showing how it was a turning point for the period as stated in the thesis. Indigenous people were adapting white ways such as owning plantations with large numbers of slaves (Saunt 13). Saunt shows how feelings of superiority, greed, and perhaps fear made many white Southerners decide the Indigenous had become a problem to live with and would be better off out of sight and therefore out of mind (Saunt 62). The second section is much like the first; it shows those in power such as President Andrew Jackson, who grew up in the American south and had strong views about Native Americans, leading the way for dispossession. Legislation that moved the Indigenous out of the way for improvement of Southern Whites would shift the balance of power economically in favor of the South which Saunt points out in his thesis (Saunt 77). The third section speaks on removal plans laid by the USA government. It also shows how cholera was spread throughout the USA through Native removal; it should not be surprising that Saunt notes the Indigenous were taken on routes similar to slave trading routes. Section three sets out to prove Saunt’s viewpoint that deportation was not the only course of action and that it helped propel the USA republic down the course of its current history (Saunt 147). Section four of Unworthy Republic shows how the deportation was financed and who profited from it. As an example, Saunt shows the reader Sauk miners thrived until white miners moved in and took over their enterprise (Saunt 143-145). The removal of the Indigenous in the south was a turning point for US history. Plantations would expand and economically the United States would flourish. The amount of money the Indigenous lost from the removal and how much land and equity Americans gained during this tumultuous time was vast. The price of land sales helped with the cumulative cost of deportation as Saunt shows with graphs and maps that deportation was profitable (Saunt 309-313). The final section shows that the expulsion of Native Americans is set in history for all time because of the atrocities that happened. Many of the Indigenous had left for Indian territory and large percentages died along the way (Saunt 139, 217, 298). The fact that the Cherokee and the Seminoles were the only large number of Indigenous left in the south by 1838 shows the complete erasure of all the other thriving Native communities in the south (Saunt 268).
Saunt brings other viewpoints of people at that time such as government officials, President Andrew Jackson, and white Southerners. As far as specific historian viewpoints go Saunt does not bother to incorporate that into the Unworthy Republic, he does bring in other general positions which he shoots down right away with his evidence. As far as the wider context of historical events being discussed Saunt talks about how Indian removal was used by abolitionists to make connections to plantation slavery and how removal of the Indigenous meant slavery extending onto the stolen lands. (Saunt 264-265).
Unworthy Republic was written for a large audience. The way the book flows makes it easy for a layman to read and understand, especially if they are not familiar with the subject of Indigenous removal in the United States. The thought process of Saunt and the thesis of Unworthy Republic are laid out well and clear. The flow of one section into another section while taking the reader through the time period of Indigenous removal is brilliant. The maps, graphs, and photos of letters make the subject matter come to life.
Saunt does not expound on the fact that Indigenous people had plantations and slaves – which leaves the reader wondering what happened to them? Were the slaves acquired with the land taken from the Indigenous or did they travel with the Indigenous to the places they were removed to. While garnering sympathy for Native Americans Saunt seems to smother over their slave holding, mentioning a few lines here and there about how some Indigenous were opposed to emancipation of the slaves (Saunt 265). On the topic of slavery Saunt also forgets to mention that some of the Creeks would have gained much of their equity from participating in the slave trade, such as capturing runaways or selling off their Indigenous foes. The erasure of this knowledge can leave the reader wondering why Saunt came from this angle.
The ending of Unworthy Republic seems a bit abrupt; it leaves the reader curious about what happens after 1839. The notes of sadness on the last page spark interest into looking up more on the topic for the time period afterwards which is Saunt’s intent. Claudio Saunt uses harsh language when referring to Southerners and a lighter language when referring to Native Americans; one can’t help but wonder at the use of such language and its impacted intent on the reader. It seems to want to cast the white man in the role of villain and the native in the role of poor victim. Unworthy Republic fits into Indigenous exportation literature quite well. It shows the cruel realities of the world at that time in the United States.
Unworthy Republic is a compilation of great writing and research. While Saunt does not take the time to examine everything in the complexities of inter-relational ties between Indigenous communities or the complexity of Native slave holders, he makes his theory come to life with the information given. Unworthy Republic sets up a casual reader or learned scholar on the subject with enough information to process and rethink the time period differently. A new perspective is given to Native literature with Unworthy Republic.
Unworthy Republic by Claudio Saunt is chronicling the dispossession of Indigenous people in the United States of America. Saunt takes the reader along the various routes traveled by the Natives and shows how the Indigenous were either persuaded to move or forced off their ancestral lands in the South to Indian territory in the Midwest United States. The thesis of Unworthy Republic is threefold, Saunt shows the reader how deportation becomes an integral part of America’s early history, how the state sponsored deportation was a “turning point for indigenous peoples and for the United States,” and how deportation was not as inevitable as skewed history books have led many Americans to believe (Saunt xvii). The documentation used to prove these points is mainly primary – ranging from writings by Native Americans and legal proceedings to government official letters and diaries of American agents in the field. As a historian whose expertise is based in the sects of southern American history, Native American history, and Racial history in the United States Claudio Saunt creates Unworthy Republic as an intersectional literary piece. Viewpoints from all parties involved in the dispossession of Native Americans are culled into Unworthy Republic for a balanced look and to prove Saunt’s main thesis.
Unworthy Republic is divided into five main sections that tackle different aspects of Saunt’s thesis. The first section shows how deportation was not inevitable while showing how it was a turning point for the period as stated in the thesis. Indigenous people were adapting white ways such as owning plantations with large numbers of slaves (Saunt 13). Saunt shows how feelings of superiority, greed, and perhaps fear made many white Southerners decide the Indigenous had become a problem to live with and would be better off out of sight and therefore out of mind (Saunt 62). The second section is much like the first; it shows those in power such as President Andrew Jackson, who grew up in the American south and had strong views about Native Americans, leading the way for dispossession. Legislation that moved the Indigenous out of the way for improvement of Southern Whites would shift the balance of power economically in favor of the South which Saunt points out in his thesis (Saunt 77). The third section speaks on removal plans laid by the USA government. It also shows how cholera was spread throughout the USA through Native removal; it should not be surprising that Saunt notes the Indigenous were taken on routes similar to slave trading routes. Section three sets out to prove Saunt’s viewpoint that deportation was not the only course of action and that it helped propel the USA republic down the course of its current history (Saunt 147). Section four of Unworthy Republic shows how the deportation was financed and who profited from it. As an example, Saunt shows the reader Sauk miners thrived until white miners moved in and took over their enterprise (Saunt 143-145). The removal of the Indigenous in the south was a turning point for US history. Plantations would expand and economically the United States would flourish. The amount of money the Indigenous lost from the removal and how much land and equity Americans gained during this tumultuous time was vast. The price of land sales helped with the cumulative cost of deportation as Saunt shows with graphs and maps that deportation was profitable (Saunt 309-313). The final section shows that the expulsion of Native Americans is set in history for all time because of the atrocities that happened. Many of the Indigenous had left for Indian territory and large percentages died along the way (Saunt 139, 217, 298). The fact that the Cherokee and the Seminoles were the only large number of Indigenous left in the south by 1838 shows the complete erasure of all the other thriving Native communities in the south (Saunt 268).
Saunt brings other viewpoints of people at that time such as government officials, President Andrew Jackson, and white Southerners. As far as specific historian viewpoints go Saunt does not bother to incorporate that into the Unworthy Republic, he does bring in other general positions which he shoots down right away with his evidence. As far as the wider context of historical events being discussed Saunt talks about how Indian removal was used by abolitionists to make connections to plantation slavery and how removal of the Indigenous meant slavery extending onto the stolen lands. (Saunt 264-265).
Unworthy Republic was written for a large audience. The way the book flows makes it easy for a layman to read and understand, especially if they are not familiar with the subject of Indigenous removal in the United States. The thought process of Saunt and the thesis of Unworthy Republic are laid out well and clear. The flow of one section into another section while taking the reader through the time period of Indigenous removal is brilliant. The maps, graphs, and photos of letters make the subject matter come to life.
Saunt does not expound on the fact that Indigenous people had plantations and slaves – which leaves the reader wondering what happened to them? Were the slaves acquired with the land taken from the Indigenous or did they travel with the Indigenous to the places they were removed to. While garnering sympathy for Native Americans Saunt seems to smother over their slave holding, mentioning a few lines here and there about how some Indigenous were opposed to emancipation of the slaves (Saunt 265). On the topic of slavery Saunt also forgets to mention that some of the Creeks would have gained much of their equity from participating in the slave trade, such as capturing runaways or selling off their Indigenous foes. The erasure of this knowledge can leave the reader wondering why Saunt came from this angle.
The ending of Unworthy Republic seems a bit abrupt; it leaves the reader curious about what happens after 1839. The notes of sadness on the last page spark interest into looking up more on the topic for the time period afterwards which is Saunt’s intent. Claudio Saunt uses harsh language when referring to Southerners and a lighter language when referring to Native Americans; one can’t help but wonder at the use of such language and its impacted intent on the reader. It seems to want to cast the white man in the role of villain and the native in the role of poor victim. Unworthy Republic fits into Indigenous exportation literature quite well. It shows the cruel realities of the world at that time in the United States.
Unworthy Republic is a compilation of great writing and research. While Saunt does not take the time to examine everything in the complexities of inter-relational ties between Indigenous communities or the complexity of Native slave holders, he makes his theory come to life with the information given. Unworthy Republic sets up a casual reader or learned scholar on the subject with enough information to process and rethink the time period differently. A new perspective is given to Native literature with Unworthy Republic.
December 11, 2021
Tough, but necessary reading!
The United States incurred two cardinal sins from its earliest colonial days: 1) the use of chattel slavery of Black people; and 2) the treatment and enforced relocation of Native peoples from their homeland.
This well-written narrative tells the sorry story of just how we treated Native peoples after we had achieved independence, another reminder that the ringing words of the Declaration of Independence -- "that all men are created equal" -- was fro the beginning a very qualified statement which, in effect, meant WHITE men.
We are still struggling to realize the highest ambitions of that noble statement today!
At a time when many insist on the duty of schools to teach only the "purest" form of our national history, this book ought to be required reading, for it details a shameful chapter in our nation's history.
What I personally found most interesting in this account is how the enforced removal of Native peoples from their homelands was driven by the same folks responsible for chattel Black slavery -- the power-brokers of the South!
This is not one of those books that will leave you feeling good when you finish, but it plays an essential role in filling out those aspects of "the truth" that some would continue to muffle.
It is only by facing our past fully -- including its stumbles and grave mistakes -- that we can begin to take the steps necessary to "do the right thing."
Highly recommended!
The United States incurred two cardinal sins from its earliest colonial days: 1) the use of chattel slavery of Black people; and 2) the treatment and enforced relocation of Native peoples from their homeland.
This well-written narrative tells the sorry story of just how we treated Native peoples after we had achieved independence, another reminder that the ringing words of the Declaration of Independence -- "that all men are created equal" -- was fro the beginning a very qualified statement which, in effect, meant WHITE men.
We are still struggling to realize the highest ambitions of that noble statement today!
At a time when many insist on the duty of schools to teach only the "purest" form of our national history, this book ought to be required reading, for it details a shameful chapter in our nation's history.
What I personally found most interesting in this account is how the enforced removal of Native peoples from their homelands was driven by the same folks responsible for chattel Black slavery -- the power-brokers of the South!
This is not one of those books that will leave you feeling good when you finish, but it plays an essential role in filling out those aspects of "the truth" that some would continue to muffle.
It is only by facing our past fully -- including its stumbles and grave mistakes -- that we can begin to take the steps necessary to "do the right thing."
Highly recommended!
April 27, 2023
Raw deal. Our government exploited the natives, lied to the natives, deported and exterminated the natives. Surprise, surprise, we’re all living on stolen land. The whole thing is just sad. How humans treat others of their own species. Dehumanize others and participate in genocide against their own. Sometimes these lessons just point out how ugly humans are, particularly to one another. Just another senseless tragedy.
November 26, 2024
“Unworthy Republic” is a National Book Award finalist from UGA professor Claudio Saunt. Saunt painstakingly shows all the various ways the U.S. federal government, state governments (particularly Georgia), and white settlers expelled Native Americans (particularly the Chippewa, Choctaw, Seminole, Creek, and Cherokee) from their lands. There are so many facts and details here (even for someone who is well-versed in the history), it’s hard to take it all in. It is academic in nature but written a smooth, flowing narrative style.
September 2, 2024
4.25⭐️
Freakin' Andrew Jackson. Just when you think it's impossible to dislike him more than you already do...
Freakin' Andrew Jackson. Just when you think it's impossible to dislike him more than you already do...
February 11, 2025
Excellently written and extraordinarily well-researched. Saunt does an incredible job of tracing the money that fueled and was generated by Native American dispossession, as well as bringing in a humanity to their plight and individual stories. Truly an eye-opening read concerning one of the darkest times in American history.
January 24, 2021
A very readable history of the planned, willful, cruel, and violent tragedy of Indian Removal in the American East, or the Trail(s) of Tears (there were many, North and South). Piercing yet another of our society’s many myths about U.S history, Saunt shows that the policy was anything but humanitarian in its nature as it was argued then and was repeated over time. The interconnection between Removal and the spread of slavery is also a key takeaway. Highly recommended. Saunt’s other book, his first, West of the Revolution, I also highly recommend.
April 25, 2020
This is well-written, engaging book for anyone interested in the violent history of indigenous dispossession in the 1830s. I appreciate that Saunt draws upon both Northern and Southern experiences and aims at a national narrative, although he certainly spends more time on the Southeastern tribes (for a richer account of Northern dispossession, see John Bowes' Land Too Good for Indians). For students of history, you can also see the influence of New Capitalism and settler colonialism, especially with the attention he gives to the financial implications of dispossession. This book is accessible for both scholarly and popular audiences, though popular readers may find parts of it dull if you are not already interested in this period of US history.
January 6, 2021
Excellent Account of Georgia’s Deportation of Creeks and Cherokees
This is an account of The Trail Of Tears, not on the journey but how the plan to deport natives from Georgia and nearby states came about, how it was planned and carried out. It’s pretty graphic but contains necessary information. Good detail I needed a refresher on, especially the personalities. It doesn’t focus on Jackson but the Georgian government officials who appealed to Jackson for permission. Great book but heartbreaking. I read it the night that two Democratic senators were elected in Georgia and it was nice to see some progress after years of pain.
This is an account of The Trail Of Tears, not on the journey but how the plan to deport natives from Georgia and nearby states came about, how it was planned and carried out. It’s pretty graphic but contains necessary information. Good detail I needed a refresher on, especially the personalities. It doesn’t focus on Jackson but the Georgian government officials who appealed to Jackson for permission. Great book but heartbreaking. I read it the night that two Democratic senators were elected in Georgia and it was nice to see some progress after years of pain.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 314 reviews