0
When did Chief Justice John Marshall give the Court's ruling that the US should protect the Cherokee and their land in Georgia?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
In Worcester v. Georgia, (1832) Marshall expressed the opinion that the Cherokee was a sovereign nation and only the federal government had the right to regulate them. Further, the Cherokee had no obligation to follow Georgia law within their own territory. Marshall also informed Georgia that it had no right to make laws governing the use of Cherokee land.
Unfortunately, Marshall's admonition fell on deaf ears. Congress, under the Jackson administration, had already passed The Indian Removal Act of 1830, a planned relocation of Native American nations like the Creek, Choctaw, Seminole, Chickasaw and Cherokee from their ancestral homes to less desirable property west of the Mississippi River. By the time the Worcester decision was rendered, the Choctaw had already been removed, and the Seminole were in the process of resettlement.
In 1838, a mere six years after the Supreme Court's landmark decision, the Cherokee were forced to walk over 1,000 miles from their homeland to government land in what is now Oklahoma. This travesty of justice caused hundreds of Cherokee to die of disease, exposure and starvation, and became known as the "Trail of Tears."
Case Citation:
Worcester v. Georgia, 31 US 515 (1832)
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Who was the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court who ruled that Cherokee territory was not subject to state law?
Fourth Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835) made that declaration in the Supreme Court's decision for Worcester v. Georgia, (1832). Marshall also stated the federal government had a duty to protect the Cherokee Nation from Georgia's aggression, but the Congress and President Jackson ignored the suggestion because it wasn't part of the legal ruling.Case Citation:Worcester v. Georgia, 35 US 515 (1832)
Why was Worcester v. Georgia one of the most important US Supreme Court cases of the Jacksonian era?
Worcester v. Georgia was part of what has become known as the "Indian Trilogy," a series of cases involving Native American rights that were reviewed by the Marshall Court during Andrew Jackson's Presidency.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, the state of Georgia convicted and sentenced them to four years hard labor. The missionaries believed the state had targeted them because of their support of the Cherokee against Georgia's attempt to drive the Native Americans from the state, a goal established in 1828 when Georgia passed laws stripping the Cherokee of their rights (see Related Links, below, for more information). It was generally understood that had they applied for the permits, they would have been denied.When the appeal reached the Supreme Court, the Court stated the United States relationship to the Cherokee was that of two separate nations, with the Native Americans declared a "denominated domestic dependent nation." This gave the federal government the sole right of negotiation with the Native American nations, and barred Georgia from taking action against them. The Cherokee Nation's dependency on the US created both an implied (by status) and stated (by Chief justice Marshall) obligation to protect the Cherokee from Georgia, an action the federal government declined to take. Chief Justice John 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.This ruling contradicted an earlier decision of the Marshall Court in Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823), in which the Justices unanimously decided the United States owned all Native American-occupied land by virtue of the "Discovery Doctrine," a remnant of European law that states land belongs to whomever "discovers" it. The Court's theory was the United States had assumed Britain's title to the land, and the Native Americans' status was that of tenant.In Johnson, members of the Piankeshaw tribe (part of the Miami Nation) sold a plot of land to the Johnson family in 1773, and the soon-to-be US government sold the same plot to the M'Intosh family in 1775. Johnson, the plaintiff, asserted he had a prior claim to the land, and tried to have M'Intosh evicted. In the Court's opinion, the Piankeshaw sale was invalidated by the "Discovery Doctrine," so they awarded title to the defendant.Implicit in this practice was the idea, acknowledged by Marshall, that Native Americans were "...an inferior race of people, without the privileges of citizens, and under the perpetual protection and pupilage of the government."The adverse ruling in Worcester v. Georgia countered the interests of the state and federal governments. Jackson was a staunch proponent of Indian removal because, in his view, the Indian land was a valuable commodity, and their occupation stood in the way of progress. The United States had already appropriated more than 22 million acres of land from the Creek (1814) and Seminole (1818) nations by use of military force. The earlier Johnson ruling validated this practice, while the Worcester ruling seemed to condemn it, supporting, instead, Native American rights.Popular folklore alleges that President Jackson's response to the Worcester decision was, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" According to Paul Boller's book, They Never Said It: A Book of False Quotes, Misquotes, & False Attributions, however, what Jackson actually said was, "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," meaning the Court's opinion was moot because it had no power to enforce its edict (not being a legislative body).Despite the Court's expressed opinion about the United States' duty to protect the Cherokee, the only legal rulings in the case were against Georgia. Under pressure from President Jackson, the Governor of Georgia complied with the order to release the plaintiffs, but ignored the opinion about the state's lack of rights with regard to both the Cherokee and their territory. The President declined to intervene.Jackson continued to support Georgia in its mission to drive the Native Americans from their land, and successfully hobbled Marshall by nominating like-minded Associate Justices to vacancies on the then seven-member court. By politicizing the Court, Jackson subverted its power as one of the checks and balances on the Executive and Legislative branches.The sad conclusion to this story was the 1836 ratification of a removal treaty with the Cherokee Nation, the Treaty of New Echota. This resulted in the US Army forcibly relocating the Native Americans from their ancestral land under the Van Buren administration in 1838, a travesty later known as The Trail of Tears.More InformationThe Worcester case is highly significant in that it constituted a striking departure from the Supreme Court's earlier treatment of claims involving Native Americans. The majority opinion was in stark contrast to John Marshall's previous opinion in Johnson v. M'Intosh, where the Court held that the United States had the right to the title of the land within its boundaries, and that the Native Americans were but residents. It also differed significantly from Marshall's opinion in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, where the Court willingly ceded its jurisdiction over matters involving native tribes. However, the outcome that was apparently favorable to the claims of the Cherokee was precluded by a hostile Congress and the equally hostile President Andrew Jackson.It said the Cherokee Nation was subject to US federal laws, but not state laws. This was widely viewed as side-stepping the question of Indian rights, because subsequent US treaties repeatedly disenfranchised the Native Americans and appropriated their lands. However, the limitation of state restrictions on recognized Tribal Nations continues to the present day. (e.g. legalized gambling on reservations)Case Citation:Worcester v. Georgia, 31 US 515 (1832)
What was Georgia a buffer colony for?
Georgia was a buffer to protect England's colonies from Spain and France, whose colonies in Florida and Louisiana, respectively, were very close to Georgia and England's other colonies in the South.
Who founded a colony to protect the English colonies from attacks?
James Oglethorpe
What federal government does?
the federal government exists to protect the people from enemies foreign and domestic, as well as provide for the people with certain things such as speed limit laws or justice system to protect citizens from citizens
What tribe did Chief Justice John Marshall protect?
Chief Justice John Marshall tried unsuccessfully to get the federal government to protect the Cherokee Nation.
Who was the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court who ruled that Cherokee territory was not subject to state law?
Fourth Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835) made that declaration in the Supreme Court's decision for Worcester v. Georgia, (1832). Marshall also stated the federal government had a duty to protect the Cherokee Nation from Georgia's aggression, but the Congress and President Jackson ignored the suggestion because it wasn't part of the legal ruling.Case Citation:Worcester v. Georgia, 35 US 515 (1832)
What president forced the removal of the Cherokee?
Technically, none, although the test answer is Andrew Jackson, who pushed Congress to pass the Indian Removal Act of 1830.President Jackson is frequently accused of defying Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in Worcester v. Georgia, (1832) that the US government had a duty to protect the Cherokee as a dependent sovereign nation; however, Marshall's words on the subject were not part of the legal decision, but dicta (obiter dictum, Latin: an aside or comment related to the case but not legally binding; a personal opinion).The legal decision simply held that the State of Georgia had no right to pass laws regulating the Cherokee's use of their own land, and ordered Georgia to release jailed missionaries who had been living on Cherokee land in defiance of state laws.The United States wasn't party to the Worcester v. Georgia suit, so the Supreme Court didn't have authority to order them to do anything. Chief Justice Marshall made a concerted effort to persuade Jackson and the federal government to protect the Cherokee, but the President, Congress and the southern states all wanted the Native American land for their own purposes and had no intention of cooperating.Case Citation:Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832)
Why did Worcester v Georgia not allow the Cherokee to keep their land?
Worcester v. Georgia, (1832) had nothing to do with whether the Cherokee could keep their land. The case 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.The Supreme Court never had a valid opportunity to rule on a case determining whether 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.More InformationIn 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.Chief Justice Marshall told John Ross to refile the case in a lower court, but this never happened.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.
What were the circumstances of Cherokee Nation v Georgia?
No one won the case Cherokee Nation v Georgia, (1831). The US Supreme Court determined it didn't have authority to hear the case under original (trial) jurisdiction because the Cherokee Nation didn't qualify as a State. Chief Justice Marshall indicated the Court would hear the case on appeal. Unfortunately, the Cherokee didn't refile in the lower courts, so their case was never officially heard.For practical purposes, the Cherokee lost because they were unable to negotiate the federal judicial system to get a favorable ruling before the US government removed them from their ancestral land in the tragedy that became known as The Trail of Tears.Case Citation:Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831)
How was President Jackson able to overrule the Supreme Court and force the Cherokee to move?
He didn't. Chief Justice John Marshall's written opinion(s) in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia, (1832), the two Supreme Court decisions people mistakenly believe President Jackson overruled, applied only to the State of Georgia. Chief Justice John Marshall expressed his personal opinion about the United States' legal and ethical duty to the Native Americans within the body of the legal opinion, but his comments (called obiter dictum or dicta) weren't part of the Court's official decisions and weren't legally binding on the United States.ExplanationIn both Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia, (1832), the Court declared the United States relationship to the Cherokee was that of two separate nations, with the Cherokee's status a "denominated domestic dependent nation," giving the federal government the sole right of negotiation with them and creating a duty to protect the Cherokee from Georgia's hostile actions. The decision in Worcesterbarred Georgia from annexing the land, and ruled the state did not have the right of possession, nor dominion over Cherokee laws or territory, short of military conquest or legal purchase. The Supreme Court's opinion applied specifically to Georgia, not to the federal government.Jackson ignored Marshall's assertion that the federal government was obligated to protect the Native Americans; but there way no legal requirement for the federal government to follow Marshall's instructions because 1) the statement wasn't part of the official ruling (Worcester v. Georgia, (1832)); 2) the removal issue wasn't a question before the Court; 3) the United States wasn't party to the case; and 4) the Court has no power to enforce its rulings, anyway. The Constitution assigns authority over law enforcement to the Executive branch of government, over which the President presided. Because Jackson, then Van Buren, and Congress were in agreement about (mis)appropriating Cherokee land and moving them to less hospitable territory west of the Mississippi River, the Supreme Court had no way of preventing their action.Jackson pressured the Governor of Georgia to pardon and release from jail the missionaries who had lived on Native American land without buying a required state license. Georgia continued to enforce its unconstitutional laws, but did not claim the disputed territory.Jackson's presidential successor, Martin Van Buren, and Congress circumvented the Supreme Court by ratifying the Treaty of New Echota in 1836, an instrument signed by the Ridge Party, an unauthorized faction within the Cherokee Nation. The Treaty offered the Nation five million dollars and land in Indian Territory (modern-day Oklahoma) in exchange for the more desirable Southern ancestral land. Although John Ross, elected leader of the Cherokee Nation, protested to Congress, his pleas were ignored.The Supreme Court never had an opportunity to rule on the validity of the Treaty because no case was presented for consideration.For more information about Worcester v. Georgia, see Related Questions, below.
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.
Why didn't the US Supreme Court enforce its ruling in Worcester v. Georgia?
There was no need to enforce the ruling, because Georgia capitulated to pressure from President Jackson and complied with the Court's order to release the missionaries. Georgia ignored the Marshall's opinion about the state's lack of rights with regard to both the Cherokee and their territory, enabled by a lack of intervention from Congress and the President.ExplanationThe Supreme Court doesn't have authority to enforce its rulings under the Constitution. Any enforcement is the responsibility of the Executive branch, and depends upon supporting federal law from the Legislative branch.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, the Court declared the United States relationship to the Cherokee that of two separate nations, with the Cherokee considered a "denominated domestic dependent nation." This gave the federal government the sole right of negotiation with the Native American nations, barring Georgia from taking action against them. Chief Justice John 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. He also stated the United States had a duty to protect the Cherokee Nation from Georgia, which the federal government chose to ignore.Popular folklore alleges President Jackson's response to the decision was, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" According to Paul Boller's book, They Never Said It: A Book of False Quotes, Misquotes, & False Attributions, however, what Jackson actually said was, "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," meaning the Court had no power to enforce its edict. The federal government declined to intervene, as Marshall suggested.Despite the Court's expressed opinion, the only legal ruling in the case was one that overturned Georgia's conviction of the missionaries and nullified the related state laws. Under pressure from President Jackson, Georgia complied with the Court's order and released the plaintiffs, while ignoring the opinion about the state's lack of rights with regard to both the Cherokee and their territory.Marshall's comments about the federal government owing the Cherokee protection were not part of the official ruling because the United States government was not party to the case and not obligated to accommodate the Chief Justice's personal beliefs.Jackson continued to support Georgia in its mission to drive the Native Americans from their land, and successfully hobbled Marshall by nominating like-minded Associate Justices to vacancies on the then seven-member court.The sad conclusion to this story was the 1836 ratification of a legally questionable removal treaty with the Cherokee Nation, the Treaty of New Echota. This resulted in the US Army forceably removing the Native Americans from their land under the Van Buren administration in 1838, a travesty later known as The Trail of Tears.Case Citation:Worcester v. Georgia, 31 US 515 (1832)For more information, see Related Links and Related Questions, below.
Did president Lincoln protect the rights of of the Cherokee?
Yes
Was Andrew Jackson's refusal to uphold the Supreme Court's decision relative to the Cherokee a legitimate use of checks and balances?
Andrew Jackson didn't refuse to uphold the US Supreme Court's decision. This is a common misunderstanding of Chief Justice John Marshall's written opinions in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia, (1832).Hypothetically, if the Supreme Court had proper jurisdiction to order the federal government to protect the Cherokee and Jackson refused, his inaction would not be a "legitimate use of checks and balances." The Constitution doesn't authorize the President to ignore the Supreme Court's decisions; the Executive Branch (President) is charged with the responsibility of enforcing them. Jackson would have been guilty of circumventing the system of checks and balances.ExplanationIn both Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia, (1832), the Court declared the United States relationship to the Cherokee was that of two separate nations, with the Cherokee's status a "denominated domestic dependent nation," giving the federal government the sole right of negotiation with them and creating a duty to protect the Cherokee from Georgia's hostile actions. The decision in Worcesterbarred Georgia from annexing the land, and ruled the state did not have the right of possession, nor dominion over Cherokee laws or territory, short of military conquest or legal purchase. The Supreme Court's opinion applied specifically to Georgia, not to the federal government.Jackson ignored Marshall's assertion that the federal government was obligated to protect the Native Americans; there way no legal requirement for the federal government to adhere to Marshall's decision because 1) the statement wasn't part of the official ruling (Worcester v. Georgia, (1832)); 2) the removal issue wasn't a question before the Court; 3) the United States wasn't party to the case; and 4) the Court has no power to enforce its rulings, anyway. The Constitution assigns authority over law enforcement to the Executive branch of government, over which the President presided. Because Jackson, then Van Buren, and Congress were in agreement about (mis)appropriating Cherokee land and moving them to less hospitable territory west of the Mississippi River, the Supreme Court had no way of preventing their action.Jackson pressured the Governor of Georgia to pardon and release from jail the missionaries who had lived on Native American land without buying a required state license. Georgia continued to enforce its unconstitutional laws, but did not claim the disputed territory.Treaty of New EchotoaPresident Jackson wasn't in office when the Cherokee were forced from their land following the 1836 Treaty of New Echotoa. President Jackson opposed the Court's developing support of Native American rights, but was never legally required to uphold the Court's decisions in the relevant cases.Jackson's presidential successor, Martin Van Buren, and Congress circumvented the Supreme Court by ratifying the Treaty of New Echota in 1836, an instrument signed by the Ridge Party, an unauthorized faction within the Cherokee Nation. The Treaty offered the Nation 5 million dollars and land in Indian Territory (modern Oklahoma) in exchange for the more desirable Southern ancestral land. Although John Ross, elected leader of the Cherokee Nation, protested to Congress, his pleas were ignored. The illegal treaty lead directly to the tragic "Trail of Tears."The Supreme Court never had an opportunity to rule on the validity of the Treaty because no case was presented for consideration.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
In worcester v. Georgia the supreme court decided that Cherokee land was being taken illegally. what was a result of this decision?
President Jackson refused to protect Native American lands.
Why did the adaptation of white culture not protect the Cherokee from removal?
The U.S. found gold in Cherokee land, so they decided to ignore the treaty between the two and pushed the Cherokee out.
