Name and Citation: Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat) 543 (1823) Court: U.S. Supreme Court Judicial History: Trial court returned verdict for the defendant (McIntosh). Johnson appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Facts: In 1773, Thomas Johnson bought land from the Piankeshaw tribe in the Northwest Territory, which is present-day Illinois. This purchased was made possible by the King of England’s 1763 proclamation. Then, William McIntosh acquired the rights to that same piece of land from the United States federal government. The plaintiffs in this particular case were the heirs of Thomas Johnson. Since they had inherited the land, the plaintiffs filed a suit against McIntosh and asked the Illinois District Court to affirm that McIntosh’s claim to said land was invalid. Since said land was purchased from the Native Americans, Johnson’s heirs disputed that their claim was more authentic. The Illinois District Court sided with McIntosh since Congress granted the title he had received for the land. Johnson’s heirs then appealed the case to the Supreme Court. Issue(s): Can Indians give a …show more content…
William McIntosh (1823) court case it states "So, too, with respect to the concomitant principle, that the Indian inhabitants are to be considered merely as occupants, to be protected, indeed, while in peace, in the possession of their lands, but to be deemed incapable of transferring the absolute title to others." Chief Justice Marshall provided a thorough historical account of European land accession in America and laid out the “discovery doctrine” that was agreed upon. The nation that made the discovery gained control over Indian regulations. It’s not up to the court to question the right of title since (historically) the United States has the authority to grant the land, not the Indians. Therefore, Indians were merely occupants and could possess the land but could not transfer titles to private
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
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
Fishing and hunting have been at the core of many American Indian cultures like the Nisqually since precontact. Indian hunting, fishing and gathering were conducted then—as they are now—not for sport, but for food and for a livelihood. This was well understood by the early colonists and later by the U.S. government. Thus, many of the treaties (e.g., Medicine Creek, 1854) negotiated between the federal government and Indian tribes in the nineteenth century contained provisions guaranteeing rights to hunt and fish. In the trea¬ty negotiated by Isaac Stevens, the tribe ceded to the U.S. some of the Nisqually vil¬lages and prairies, but Article Three reserved the tribe’s right to fish “at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations…in common with all citizens of the Territory.” (FL 12) But the growth of the European American population, and with it the proliferation of fenced lands, the destruction of natural habitat, and often the destruction of wildlife itself, drastically curtailed the Indians' ability to carry on these activities. Charles Wilkinson’s thesis declares that the “messages from Frank’s Landing” are “messages about ourselves, about the natural world, about societies past, about this society, and about societies to come.” (FL 6)
“The decision of the Jackson administration to remove the Cherokee Indians to lands west of the Mississippi River in the 1830’s was [less] a reformulation of the national policy that had been in effect since the 1790’s [and more] a change in that policy.”
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
The case Worcester v. Georgia (1832) was a basis for the discussion of the issue of states' rights versus the federal government as played out in the administration of President Andrew Jackson and its battle with the Supreme Court. In addition to the constitutional issues involved, the momentum of the westward movement and popular support for Indian resettlement pitted white man against Indian. All of these factors came together in the Worcester case, which alarmed the independence of the Cherokee Nation, but which was not enforced. This examines the legal issues and tragic consequences of Indian resettlement.
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.
The generalization that, “The decision of the Jackson administration to remove the Cherokee Indians to lands west of the Mississippi River in the 1830s was more a reformulation of the national policy that had been in effect since the 1790s than a change in that policy,” is valid. Ever since the American people arrived at the New World they have continually driven the Native Americans out of their native lands. Many people wanted to contribute to this removal of the Cherokees and their society. Knox proposed a “civilization” of the Indians. President Monroe continued Knox’s plan by developing ways to rid of the Indians, claiming it would be beneficial to all. Andrew Jackson ultimately fulfilled the plan. First of all, the map [Document A] indicates the relationship between time, land, and policies, which affected the Indians. The Indian Tribes have been forced to give up their land as early as the 1720s. Between the years of 1721 and 1785, the Colonial and Confederation treaties forced the Indians to give up huge portions of their land. During Washington's, Monroe's, and Jefferson's administration, more and more Indian land was being commandeered by the colonists. The Washington administration signed the Treaty of Holston and other supplements between the time periods of 1791 until 1798 that made the Native Americans give up more of their homeland land. The administrations during the 1790's to the 1830's had gradually acquired more and more land from the Cherokee Indians. Jackson followed that precedent by the acquisition of more Cherokee lands. In later years, those speaking on behalf of the United States government believed that teaching the Indians how to live a more civilized life would only benefit them. Rather than only thinking of benefiting the Indians, we were also trying to benefit ourselves. We were looking to acquire the Indians’ land. In a letter to George Washington, Knox says we should first is to destroy the Indians with an army, and the second is to make peace with them. The Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1793 began to put Knox’s plan into effect. The federal government’s promise of supplying the Indians with animals, agricultural tool...
The “Utmost Good Faith” clause from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 however, stated, “The utmost good faith shall always be observed toward the Indians; their land and property shall not be taken from them without their consent; and in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed.” (Document 9). However, a letter from three Seneca Indian leaders to George Washington, President of the United States, argued, “When your army entered the country of Six (Iroquois) Nations, we called you the town destroyer; to this day, when your name is heard, our women look behind them and turn pale, and our children cling to the necks of their mothers…” (Document 10). This, in fact, proves the American Revolution was not revolutionary because the Indians were promised the “Utmost Good Faith” and that their land and property would never be invaded or disturbed, but their towns were left completely devastated and halted society from changing into a better
To own land, that is the privilege of whom? To Andrew Jackson the Cherokees current homesteads where on his country’s land. For whatever reason at that time some people living in America weren’t treated as good as there white counterparts. Meanwhile the Cherokees principal chief John Ross felt like that land belonged to his people. If you want to get technical he was speaking on the behalf of a tribe that made up a mere one-eighth of his ancestry. Not exactly a full blooded leader. He also was one of the main reason the “trail of tears” was as hostile and brutal as it was on his people. Its ironic, even as hard as Jackson pushed and deceived the Cherokee, the Cherokee people in turn pushed back, but past the point of being rational.
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.
The rulings made by the John Marshall and the Supreme court regarding the Cherokee and their inhabited land benefited the Cherokee. After decades of losing their land and withstanding the genocide of their people, the younger generations chose to go to court instead of turning to more bloodshed. The Supreme Court came to two conclusions on two different occasions regarding the Cherokee and their lands. The prior ruling stated, in short, that the Cherokee were subject to being protected by the constitution and could not be tried due to their non citizenship. The second ruling further protects the Cherokee from unconstitutional acts conducted by Georgia. These rulings were not only beneficial, but were impartial and withheld constitutionality.
Natives were forcefully removed from their land in the 1800’s by America. In the 1820’s and 30’s Georgia issued a campaign to remove the Cherokees from their land. The Cherokee Indians were one of the largest tribes in America at the time. Originally the Cherokee’s were settled near the great lakes, but overtime they moved to the eastern portion of North America. After being threatened by American expansion, Cherokee leaders re-organized their government and adopted a constitution written by a convention, led by Chief John Ross (Cherokee Removal). In 1828 gold was discovered in their land. This made the Cherokee’s land even more desirable. During the spring and winter of 1838- 1839, 20,000 Cherokees were removed and began their journey to Oklahoma. Even if natives wished to assimilate into America, by law they were neither citizens nor could they hold property in the state they were in. Principal Chief, John Ross and Major Ridge were leaders of the Cherokee Nation. The Eastern band of Cherokee Indians lost many due to smallpox. It was a year later that a Treaty was signed for cession of Cherokee land in Texas. A small number of Cherokee Indians assimilated into Florida, in o...
First, let's start off with the supreme court case, Worchester v. Georgia. It was a case between the Cherokees and Georgia to decide whether Georgia taking the Native Americans land is constitutional or not. John Marshall ruled this as unconstitutional and defended the Cherokees in this case. I state from John Marshall, "They interfere forcibly with the relations established between the U.S. and the Cherokee nation... The actions of Georgia are disgusted to the Constitution." The Cherokees and John Marshall tried their very hardest to try to win this case using the
In the 1830’s President Andrew Jackson demanded that all of the Cherokee Indians must leave the land they have called home for thousands of years. They are faced with the decision to either leave, and make a dangerous journey west, or rebel against the government, and accept the consequences. The Cherokee have the best chance of survival if they accept their new tribal lands and move west, because If they resist the government and stay in their original lands, they will be punished by the United States, and if the Cherokee move west, the United States will pay them and give them many valuable resources.