Cait:

Jeff Sloat asks a related question: The Native Americans are not part of the America's idea of the new west?

Kerri asks: Was the removal policy really more strict than it  sounds during the reading?  It sounds as [if] it was enforced but not too strongly? What was the main part of the Indian culture that was affected by the war and the west ward expansion?

Here is Stephen A. Douglas explaining the necessity of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in a letter:

How are we to develop, cherish and protect our immense interests and possessions in the Pacific, with a vast wilderness fifteen hundred miles in breadth filled with hostile savages, and cutting off direct communication? The Indian barrier must be removed. The tide of emigration and civilization must be permitted to roll onward until it rushes through the passes of the mountains, and spreads over the plains, and mingles with the waters of the Pacific. Continuous lines of settlements with civil, political and religious institutions, under the protection of law, are imperiously demanded by the highest national considerations. These are essential, but they are not sufficient. . . . We must therefore have Rail Roads and Telegraphs from the Atlantic to the Pacific, through our own territory. Not one line only, but many lines, for the valley of the Mississippi will require as many Rail Roads to the Pacific as to the Atlantic, and will not venture to limit the number.

We can use the letter as a kind of straw in the wind for approaching this question.

We can follow up with Kevin's questions about Wounded Knee:

1.  What was it about the Ghost Dance Religion that made it outlawed by the United States Government, thus leading up to the Wounded Knee massacre?
2.  Why weren't there any repercussions for the United States Government after the killings of those who were fleeing authorities?

We can take a quick look at some of the sources that bear on these questions.

Cait also asks:

Jennifer has a related question or, actually, two:

1.)  What happened to small farmers after the corporations began to take over and own all aspects of production?

2.)  Where the small farmers better off after industrialization or actually worse off because of the monopolies that were created?

Jon asks the question in a different way:

As myth and as economic entity, the West proved indispensable to the formation of a national society and a cultural mission: to fill the vacancy of the Western spaces with civilization, by means of incorporation (political as well as economic) and violence. Myth and exploitation, incorporation and violence: the process went hand in hand.
 
          - I am a little confused by this statement by Trachtenberg. How do myth and exploitation, incorporation and violence exactly go hand in hand? What exactly is he saying here?

Jon continues:

- Furthermore, is Trachtenberg later arguing that it is perhaps the artists' fault for the end of a "Wild America"? Is he saying that because they portray the West as such a beautifully raw region full of opportunity, that it attracts business pioneers seeking new ways to profit in the quickly growing America? Not only does it show the natural beauty of the region to the tourist, but it also shows the businessmen just how profitable starting up a business out West potentially can be.

Jeff asks a related question: Where did the idea of the "Wild Wild West" come from?

Matt asks: Why does Trachetenberg call Turner's thesis on America a "myth" even though Americans still view themselves as having a strong sense of independence and a strong work ethic today? What does the speech being in Chicago have to do with the myth?, and what were the "real" politics occuring in the West?
 
  The Chicago part we can begin to answer by noting it was the site of the White City Columbian Exposition.