0
What action did the Cherokee take to resist their removal from Georgia and North Carolina to the West?
Wiki User
∙ 6y ago
i know i came here for the answer not to answer it
Wiki User
∙ 6y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How do you find out if you are a Native American Indian you are of Cherokee descendant?
Cherokee names are often family names (clan names) where a characteristic is named and the last name would be the name of your clan (you would have to consult the clan elder for the name given to you). Equally as common a cherokee will be named after an action or characteristic that the person portrays, kind of like nick names in english culture. So the answer to your question is your name is pretty much whatever you want it to be.
Why did the Cherokee lose their land anyway after the US Supreme Court ruled they could keep their land?
The Supreme Court didn't rule that the Cherokee could keep their land. Chief Justice John Marshall's written opinion that the federal government had an obligation to protect the Native Americans was not part of the legal ruling; it was simply his personal opinion.In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 US 1 (1831), the Cherokee petitioned the US Supreme Court for an injunction against the state of Georgia, to prevent them from annexing the Nation's land. The Court determined it didn't have original jurisdiction to hear the matter because it ruled the Cherokee Nation was not a state but a "denominated domestic dependent nation." As such, only the federal government had the right to negotiate with them, and owed the Native Americans a duty of protection against the state of Georgia, due to their dependent status. While this set precedent establishing Native American Nations' relationship to state and federal government, it only created a moral, not legal, obligation for the United States, because the US wasn't party to the suit. The injunction was denied, and the case dismissed.in Worcester v. Georgia, 31 US 515 (1832), the Court held that Georgia had no right to pass laws regarding use of Native American land, and ordered the Governor to release missionaries (Worcester, et al.) imprisoned for violating a state law passed in 1828 requiring whites to purchase a permit in order to live on Cherokee land. Georgia complied with the Supreme Court decision, but only because President Jackson applied pressure on Georgia's Governor to pardon the missionaries.Chief Justice Marshall explicitly stated Georgia had no legal claim to the land because the rights had passed from England to the federal government following the Revolutionary War, giving the federal government sole right to negotiate with the Cherokee. While Marshall again expressed a belief that the United States should protect the Cherokee from hostile state action, the Court couldn't rule the Cherokee could keep their land for two reasons:The United States was not party to the suit in Worcester v. Georgia, and not obligated to abide by Marshall's literal opinion, no matter how forcefully he stated it.The Court didn't have jurisdiction to rule on the eviction issue, because the question wasn't raised in the case.While both cases are historically important, they only applied to Georgia; neither prevented the United States from acting to relocate the Cherokee. The federal government accomplished this mission via the Treaty of New Echota, a removal agreement offering the Nation $5 million and land in Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma) in exchange for their ancestral Southern land.John Ross, elected leader of the Cherokee Nation never signed the Treaty; however, a small faction within the Nation, The Ridge Party (named for Major Ridge, who engineered the transaction), endorsed it, collected the money, and moved. The Ridge Party signatories weren't elected representatives of the tribe, and broke Cherokee law when acting as their agent, but Congress proceeded as though the agreement was valid. John Ross protested to Congress, but was ignored.The dispute over the Treaty of New Echota was never presented to the US Supreme Court, so they had no way to intervene on the Native Americans' behalf.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
How did president jacksons views towards native Americans differ from the supreme courts views?
It is my understanding that President Andrew Jackson and Chief Justice John Marshall were diametrically opposite in their views of Native American rights. In fact, Jackson refused to accept any Supreme Court action that would favor the Native American. For example, in response to the Supreme Court's decision of Worchester v. Georgia, President Jackson was rumored to have said: "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!" As a result, Georgia would initially ignore Marshall's ruling, however they would eventually avoid federal jeopardy by quietly releasing Worchester.At that time, Native Americans were not even recognized as U.S. Citizens. Moreover, Jackson did not consider Native Americans to be civilized enough to have any constitutional privileges, much less entitlement to the land they were occupying. It is no surprise that he followed-up with the forced removal of Cherokee People, which had been made legitimate by the Indian Removal Act.Even though Jackson's dislike of Native Americans was obvious, it has been suggested that his political motives went beyond his prejudices. Jackson was a strong unionist, and he ignored federal enforcement of Worchester v. Georgia as a token gesture to keep Georgia from further federal alienation (state's rights, secession), as he already felt South Carolina was headed. To further his favor with the South, Jackson even appointed a U.S. Representative from Georgia to the Supreme Court during Marshall's tenure.However, in the long term, Chief Justice Marshall would reach beyond his grave to have the last laugh. Historically, his Supreme Court action in Worchester v. Georgia would be the single most important judicial decision affecting relations between the U.S. and Indian Nations. It would establish a legal precedent that the Indian nations are sovereign and independent of any state's legislation, while being subject only to the U.S. Government. Worchester v. Georgia would be cited many times to affect Supreme Court decisions well into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
About how many Cherokee hid in the mountains during the Trail of Tears?
It's impossible to know for sure, because by the very nature of their action the people had to successfully avoid detection. Rough estimates put the number of escaped Tsalagi at a few hundred.
What was the case of Worcester verses Georgia?
President Jackson pressured the Governor of Georgia to release the eleven jailed missionaries, upholding the only substantive ruling in the case.Worcester served little useful purpose to the Cherokee. The US Supreme Court ruled that the state of Georgia had no legal right to interfere with the Nation or pass laws enforceable on native land, but had no power to enforce its decisions.Chief Justice Marshall wrote a strong opinion urging the federal government to protect the Native Americans from Georgia's aggression, but was unable to persuade President Jackson to his point of view. Georgia chose to ignore the Supreme Court's order to stop intruding on the Cherokee's rights, and since Jackson had no legal obligation to abide by Marshall's opinion (because the US government wasn't party to the Worcester v. Georgia case), nothing changed for the better as a result of the case.Marshall had no real hope of finding support for his position in the federal government, because the President and majority of Congress wanted to convert prime Cherokee property for their own economic use. In 1838, the United States succeeded in acquiring Cherokee land in an illegal trade under the Treaty of New Echota. The end result was the tragic "Trail of Tears" relocation from Georgia to territory west of the Mississippi River, causing hardship and death for many Native Americans.Case Citation:Worcester v. Georgia, 31 US 515 (1832)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
How did john g burnett feel about the treatment of the Cherokee?
He felt the he was forced in his action and that the removal of the Cherokee's was wrong.
What action did Georgia take against Cherokee?
federal injunction against laws passed by the state of Georgia depriving them of rights within its boundaries, but the Supreme Court did not hear the case on its merits.
Junk Removal?
Junk Removal is an action of cleaning and removing junk from construction and buildings.
Did the US Supreme Court case Worcester v. Georgia legally open Cherokee lands to mining?
No. The case had nothing to do with mining.Worcester v. Georgia (1832) addressed a Georgia law requiring whites living in Cherokee territory to obtain a permit from the state. When seven missionaries refused to follow the law, they were convicted and sentenced to four years hard labor.When the appeal reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshall stated the United States relationship to the Cherokee was that of two separate nations, giving the federal government the sole right of negotiation with the Native American nations, and barring Georgia from taking action against them. Marshall further opined that the government did not have the right of possession of Native American land, nor dominion over their laws, short of military conquest or legal purchase.According to Marshall, the Cherokee weren't bound by Georgia state law while in their own territory, and Georgia couldn't make laws regarding use of their territory.He also ordered Georgia to release the missionaries, which it did.
What is effective action?
The mass action effect is the shift in the position of equilibrium through the addition or removal of a participant in the equilibrium.
Why does Jackson think the Cherokee will be better off in Indian territory?
Jackson thought that the Cherokee would be better off in Indian Territory because it was not subject to action by individual states.
Why does Jackson think that the Cherokee will be better off in Indian territory?
Jackson thought that the Cherokee would be better off in Indian Territory because it was not subject to action by individual states.
What actions are taken when a breast lumpectomy is performed?
The suffix -ectomy in lumpectomy means removal of. In this case a lump-ectomy would be the removal of a lump. The action performed in a breast lumpectomy would be the removal of a lump from a breast.
Why was the treaty of new echota considered illegal to the Cherokee?
This treaty was unlawful because it was signed by people who were not members of the Cherokee Tribe, they were hired by the State of Georgia to sign on behalf of the Cherokee Nation. This was also the findings of the US Supreme Court; but the president at the time ignored this and forced them to be removed anyway. It should also be noted that those who signed the treaty were killed along with their entire families (under Indian law) and their possessions were thrown on the ground (another traditional action, even the possessions are poisoned).
How much is an average 75 Cherokee 12 gauge non bolt action worth?
25 USD
How are the Cherokee today in North Carolina and Oklahoma able to preserve their traditional heritage?
Overall they cannot preserve it; governmental regulation (even from internal political action) is slowly eroding traditional values and systems. The number of traditionalists (those that shun modern religions, politics, and society) are very small.
This action by Congress moved the Native Americans west of the Mississippi River?
Indian Removal Act.
