Marshall Trilogy Case Analysis

The debate over the legality of sovereignty and acquired lands from the native Americans, specifically the Cherokee, has long been debated. The issues involved have included treaties, land sold, and the right of the Government to physically enforce their rules on Indian land "sovereignty". This paper will examine the strategy used by the Federal Governments, the State Governments as well as those of the Cherokee Indians. The three-way relationship as well as the issues will examine how the interpretation of the Constitution changed society prior to the year of 1840.

The Dawes Act of 1887 began the process of allotment. By trying to force Native Americans to become farmers, the federal government cast many groups into poverty. The land which the United States held in trust for Indians was usually not choice farmland. Those trying to make a living off the inhospitable lands of the West found little success. During the interwar period of the early twentieth century, the government made new efforts to alleviate Indians’ position as a marginalized group. Over 10,000 Native Americans volunteered and served with distinction in the armed forces during World War I. In recognition of their efforts, Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924, making all American Indians United States citizens.

There has been much documentation on the plight of Native Americans throughout the beginnings of this nation. In spite of the attempts by the early government of the United States, the culture of many Native American tribes has survived and even flourished. The Dawes Severalty Act of 1887 is just one of many examples of how our government attempted to wipe out Native American culture. This paper will discuss the Dawes Act, particularly the time leading up to the act, the act itself, and finally its failure. By understanding the past failures in the treatment of a particular race of people, the government can learn how to protect the rights of all people, especially in a day and age of cultural diversity.

The Dawes Act of 1887 was one of the biggest debates in history after the Civil War. The plan was meant to help American Indians, but it had many flaws and downfalls that it hurt them more than it helped. The act, proposed by Senator Henry Dawes in 1887, granted plots of land of different sizes, depending on family rank and age, to Native Americans. It also made it possible for any Native American born in the United States a path to citizenship. It stated that all the Native Americans had to do was adopt an American way of life. This part of the act was called assimilation, it stated that the Native Americans should adopt a new way of life that is more similar to the American culture. Many Native Americans didn’t want to change how they live

Georgia). The state of Georgia never released them from imprisonment and Jackson never intervened. The government also turned a blind eye when dealing with treaties that were previously agreed to with the Indians. In 1791 the Cherokee nation acknowledged themselves to be under the protection of the United States and no other sovereign, also an agreement was made that white men could not be on their lands without passports. Jackson himself offered false promises to the Indians that they would have the lands west of the Mississippi "as long as Grass grows or water runs.

This Indian Removal Act allowed state officials to override federal protection of Native Americans. The American settlers had wanted the land for white

The government attempted to uphold relations with the Indians on the condition that they establish themselves in the beliefs and values of the United States people (Jackson, First Annual Message to Congress, 2). They wanted the Indians to be of the Christian faith and to learn their practices, such as their agricultural lifestyle and techniques, to help civilize and assimilate the Indian people. This really just rooted the settler’s supremacist temperament into place. The Supreme Court did back the Indians temporarily in the Worcester v. Georgia trial, in which the United States Supreme Court held that “the Cherokee Indians constituted a nation holding distinct sovereign powers” (Garrison, Worcester v. Georgia, 1). While it seemed a concerted effort, it eventually led to the forced signing of the Cherokee people at the “Cherokee capital of New Echota”, and furthermore, to the Trail of Tears and the downfall of the Indian nation (Garrison, Worcester v. Georgia, 1). The Americans ultimately made a frail attempt at civil dealings with the Indian people and their tribes, but when the Indians refused, the government used unnecessary force and aggression to get what they

The Marshall Trilogy is a term used to describe the three federal court cases that are the basis of federal Indian Law. John Marshall was the Chief of Justice during this time and he played a significant role in these cases. John Marshall and other justices believed that Native American tribes should be allowed to retain their independent “nations” status, and only the Federal Government would have the power to relate with them.

filed with the U.S. Supreme Court an action challenging the authority of Georgia's laws. The Cherokees disputed that the laws desecrated their chief rights as a nation and criminally interfered into their treaty relationship with the United States. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the court held that it did not have the authority to strike down Georgia's laws. In dicta that became particularly important in American Indian law, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that the Cherokees constituted a "private, dependent nation" that existed under the custody of the United States.

The Market Revolution adversely affected the liberty of Native Americans residing within the United States because they were seen as an obstacle to the country’s economic progress. As the Market Revolution ideas of commerce and expansion took hold in the minds of the people, these white citizens shared the view that Native Americans were hindering the goal of expansion. The citizens believed it was their God-sanctioned right to settle the West (Manifest Destiny) and the Native Americans stood in the way. Conflicts with Native Americans have existed in America since the first settlers, but with the increased emphasis on commerce and development brought by the Market Revolution, the relations worsened. In 1823, during the case of Johnson v M’Intosh, the Supreme Court claimed that Native Americans only had the “right of occupancy” on their land, and that they did not own it. In 1830, under Jackson’s administration, the Indian Removal Act was created which tried to move the 5 Civilized Tribes out of their lands.

The Dawes Act, also known as the General Allotment Act, had devastating effects on the Native American population in 1887 by stripping the people of their heritage, ideas, values, and land, and it continues

The Market Revolution adversely affected the liberty of Native Americans residing within the United States because they were seen as an obstacle to the country’s economic progress. As the Market Revolution ideas of commerce and expansion took hold in the minds of the people, these white citizens shared the view that Native Americans were hindering the goal of expansion. It was the United State’s God-ordained right to occupy and settle the land westward (Manifest Destiny), and the Native Americans were in the way. The conflicts with Native Americans has existed in America since the first settlers, but with the increased emphasis on commerce and development brought by the Market Revolution, the relations worsened. In 1823, during the case of Johnson v M’Intosh, the Supreme Court claimed that Native Americans only had the “right of occupancy” on their land, and that they did not own it. In 1830, under Jackson’s administration, the Indian Removal Act was created which tried to move the 5 Civilized Tribes out of their lands. Finally, in the Trail of Tears during 1838-1839, 18,000 Cherokee men, women, and children were forcibly removed from their lands and relocated to Oklahoma by federal soldiers. Soon

This case was given to the US Supreme Court so that the US officials could not force their government into Cherokee territory. This article gives important details of how the case was decided and how the conclusion of Cherokee nation not being a self-governed nation. This article informs readers why the Cherokees’ felt the need to ask for complete control of their nation and why the Supreme Court refused to give the Cherokees’ their independence. This article details the many efforts women tried to defeat the Indian Removal.

“There was no way to return the land that had been taken to its rightful owners, and besides, the powerless remnants of once great Indian tribes were lucky to survive from one year to the next”. (VanDevelder 2) When the Dawes Act was repealed in 1934, alcoholism, poverty, illiteracy, and suicide rates struck the reservations. Another reform incident was the effort of civilizing the natives before, from Turner's frontier thesis saw the natives as less intelligible being and reasoned that it was their jobs to educate the Native American children. They were required to attend the

. . regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The Constitution further enumerates these powers denied to the states in Article I section x. The state of Georgia challenged the federal government’s power over states rights, a precursor to the Civil War, when it challenged the trust relationship and the autonomy of the Cherokee. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in three decisions (Marshall Trilogy) upheld the United States’ federal power, defined the responsibility of the doctrine of federal trust, and clarified the sovereignty of Indian nations: Johnson v McIntosh 1823, Cherokee v Georgia 1831, Worcester v Georgia 1832.