Johnson V. M’Intosh case illustrates how the developing United States established the ownership of the Native American land that is now the United States of America. In the case, Johnson had inherited land that was previously owned by a Native American tribe. On the other hand, M’Intosh claimed ownership of the same land because his family had purchased the land from the United States. In the end, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the favor of M’Intosh ownership of the land, because the land is federally owned by the United States government. Chief Justice, John Marshall bases his decision on the “Doctrine of Discovery”, a law that allowed colonial powers to claim newly discovered land. As stated in the course readings, Uneven Roads; the text goes onto explain that Marshall didn’t believe that the Indians had any ‘right of occupancy’ and are not entitled to the ownership of their land. Shaw further …show more content…
It was typical for the general society to look down as the Native American peoples as “savages” incapable of conducting themselves or a functional society or culture, even so, he hoped that they could assimilate into white society and become farmers. In Property and Persuasion, Essays on the History, Theory, and Rhetoric of Ownership, author Carol Rose further explains how Marshall felt about the social status of Native Americans. “Marshall’s views toward both proper land use and Indian assimilation foreshadowed late-nineteenth-century efforts, such as the Dawes Act of 1887, to assimilate Indians into white society by turning them into farmers. Therefore, Johnson v. M’Intosh held not only political and legal but also social consequences for American Indian sovereignty and Indian-white relations.” Additionally, as discussed during lecture colonists used Christian principles to assert their superiority over the Native American
To many of the English colonists, any land that was granted to them in a charter by the English Crown was theirs’, with no consideration for the natives that had already owned the land. This belittlement of Indians caused great problems for the English later on, for the natives did not care about what the Crown granted the colonists for it was not theirs’ to grant in the first place. The theory of European superiority over the Native Americans caused for any differences in the way the cultures interacted, as well as amazing social unrest between the two cultures.
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
I wish I could forget it all, but the picture of six-hundred and forty-five wagons lumbering over the frozen ground with their cargo of suffering humanity still lingers in my memory.” He says that he wishes he had not seen what he saw on this trip and he wishes it did not happen. When the Cherokees appealed to the U.S. to protect their land, the Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that the states were not allowed to make laws that govern the Cherokees, only the federal government can. This meant that Georgia laws don’t involve the Cherokees. Many religious groups, like the Quakers, didn’t want to force Native Americans against their will to move from their homelands.
Jacksonian Democracy Between the years of 1775 and 1825, the United States government was hypocritical with respect to their Native American policy. The government, at most times, claimed to be acting in the best interest of the Native Americans. They claimed that their actions were for the benefit of not only their own citizens, but for the Native Americans, too. These beneficial actions included relocation from their homeland, murder in great numbers, rape, and a complete disregard for the various cultures represented by the Native Americans. While the nation was still very young, it issued the Northwest Ordinance. This document told the Native Americans that they should not feel threatened by this new nation because good faith shall always be observed toward the Indians. The United States told the Native Americans, with this document, that they were dealing with a just and humane country. Despite these humane intentions, in 1790, Native Americans pleaded with President Washington about the cruel treatment they were receiving. The Indian chiefs wrote to Washington to inquire as to why they were being punished. They referred to the American army as the town destroyer. Obviously the Untied States was not acting in the good hearted manner and just way it had declared it would in 1787. Americans, as they moved westward, tried to rationalize its brutal treatment of the Native Americans. In 1803, Jefferson set two goals in regard to dealing with the Native Americans. His first goal was to convince them to abandon hunting and become educated in the ways of the white man (i.e. agriculture or raising stock). He said that they would see the advantages of this better life. In reality, Jackson wanted to control the amount of land the Native Americans occupied. He also spoke of leading them to civilization and to the benefits of the United States government. Jefferson presented these goals as being advantageous for them. In actuality, these goals put the Native Americans at a sizable disadvantage. In 1811, an Indian chief
When the Dawes Act, a Native American Policy, was enforced in 1887, it focused on breaking up reservations by granting land allotments to individual Native Americans. At that time, people believed that if a person adopted the white man’s clothing, ways and was responsible for his own farm, he would eventually drop his, as stated by the Oxford University Press, “Indian-ness” and become assimilated in American society. The basic idea of this act was the taking away of Native American Culture because they were considered savage and primitive to the incoming settlers. Many historians now agree the Native’s treatment throughout the Dawes Act was completely unfair, unlawful, and unethical. American Society classified them as savages solely on their differences in morals, religion, appearance and overall culture.
The Native Americans were still seen as a less civilized race, but those against the Act believed that the Indians could become civilized without any guidance. Not to mention that the land given to the natives would more often than not be selected for them, many of the land that was allotted was poor land that made farming next to impossible. The best land would go to the more civilized of the two races or the one with the most wealth. Despite the Indians receiving poor land, there were many occasions where Indians were tricked out of their land allotment before the government would release their title to them. Any land that was gifted to the Natives was either stolen from them or poor quality, the Dawes Act seemed to be more in the White settlers’ interest than the intended party.
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
“It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community.” (Jackson).
For the overall question of this lab I used primary source two the Dawes Act 1887. The Dawes Act had an negative impact on the unity, self-government, and culture of Native Americans. It also allowed emphasis on individual land ownership. Native Americans supported a great deal at the hands of white men, during these times trying to protect their culture and their way of living. Legislators hoped to complete the assimilation process by forcing the deterioration of the communal life-style of the Native societies and imposing western values of strength to nuclear families and values of the dependency economics strictly within this small household unit by dividing reservation lands into privately owned. Native Americans lost over 90 million acres
To understand Jackson’s book and why it was written, however, one must first fully comprehend the context of the time period it was published in and understand what was being done to and about Native Americans in the 19th century. From the Native American point of view, the frontier, which settlers viewed as an economic opportunity, was nothin...
Just as Joe and his friends were asked to leave the church premises, many Indians were forced off their own land regardless of the fact that they had rights to the land. An article from the Tulsa Law Review states that even though Indians may have full rights to land, such as the property of the church and its surroundings, "the first major Indian law case the United States Supreme Court decided, Johnson v. M'Intosh, makes clear that courts will never choose to restore the vast tribal land base. There, Chief Justice Marshall famously held that "conquest gives a title which the Courts of the conqueror cannot deny" (Singel). The government appears to ignore the rights of Indians and in the process, limits how far Joe can search for the man who abused his mother; if that man is not Indian, he would never be able to find him because of restrictions placed by the government on where he can travel or a neglect of the property laws originally put in place to protect Native American rights, but rarely
In 1971 in Mobile County Alabama the School Board created a state statute that set aside time at the beginning of each day for silent ’meditation’ (statute 6-1-20), and in 1981 they added another statute 16-1-20.1 which set aside a minute for ‘silent prayer’ as well. In addition to these, in 1982 the Mobile County School Board enacted statute 16-1-20.2, which specified a prayer that teachers could lead ‘willing’ students in “From henceforth, any teacher or professor in any public educational institution within the State of Alabama, recognizing that the Lord God is one, at the beginning of any homeroom or any class, may pray, may lead willing students in prayer, or may lead the willing students in the following prayer to God… “ (Jaffree By and Through Jaffree v. James). Ishmael Jaffree was the father of three students, Jamael Aakki Jaffree, Makeba Green, and Chioke Saleem Jaffree, who attended a school in Mobile County Alabama. Jaffree complained that his children had been pressured into participating in religious activities by their teachers and their peers, and that he had requested that these activities stopped. When the school did nothing about Jaffree’s complaints he filed an official complaint with the Mobile County School Board through the United States District Courts. The original complaint never mentioned the three state statutes that involved school prayer. However, on June 4, 1982 Jaffree changed his complaint. He now wanted to challenge the constitutionality of statutes 16-1-20, 16-1-20.1 and 16-1-20.2, and motioned for a preliminary injunction. The argument against these state laws was that they were an infringement of the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states that Congr...
On February 8, 1877, Congress passed the Dawes Act. This was named after its author, and Senator Henry Dawes from Massachusetts. The federal government stopped signing treaties with Native Americans, and replaced that with a new law, giving individual Indians ownership of land that had been tribal property. This showed the treatment of Native Americans as individuals, instead of members of their tribe. It also gave them the chance to be known as U.S citizens. This new policy made its focus on breaking up the reservations and giving the Native Americans land. The entire purpose of the Dawes Act was to protect Indian property rights of Native Americans, but the providing of the law, was fixed in a way that the members of the tribe would be taken
The Indian Removal Policy is a very controversial subject in American History. This Policy was very crucial because the passing of the law gave Americans more land for farming and cultivating, but the Cherokee would be forced off the only land they knew. The American Government believed removal was the only option, and the natives were forced to leave their beloved land. The Jackson’s administration's decision to remove the Cherokee Indians to land west of the Mississippi river in the 1830’s significantly continued throughout the previous social, political, and economic policies pursued by the colonies and the United States towards the American Indian tribes.
The Dawes Allotment Act of 1887 brought about the policy of Cultural Assimilation for the Native American peoples. Headed by Richard Henry Pratt, it founded several Residential Schools for the re-education and civilization of Native Americans. Children from various tribes and several reservations were removed from their families with the goal of being taught how to be c...