Samuel Paterson Case

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.

     In Georgia, the Cherokee Indians had developed a lifestyle that included schools, mills, and turnpikes. In the 1820's, under pressure from the state to give up their lands, they wrote a constitution, hired lawyers, and sued in the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall upheld the rights of the Cherokee against Georgia. However, Jackson refused to carry out the decision that ordered Georgia to return Cherokee lands. He is quoted as to have said, "Marshall has made his opinion, now let him enforce it."

In the Worcester v. Georgia case, the state of Georgia detained two missionaries, charging them with lodging on Indian Land without receiving a license from the state. Being citizens of the United States, both men had the right to sue in federal court. Supreme court justice, John Marshall, decided that the two men had been wrongfully detained and were qualified for protection by the federal courts. "Moreover, Marshall gave the Cherokee an important victory when he held that "the laws of Georgia can have no force" on Cherokee territory" (Keene, 244). Andrew Jackson was arrogant and wrote one of his supporter saying that the decision that was made was invalid. On the other hand, Georgia refused to accept the court's ruling and the prisoners were not released. Jackson refused to enforce Marshall's decision, mainly because he opposed Indian rights. In the end, to avoid conflict between the three branches of government Jackson convinced the governor of Georgia to release the two missionaries. This defeated any legal issues and freed the way for the Jackson administration to proceed with its policy of removal. The Indian Removal Act was an act that promoted the relocation of Indian tribes to lands west of the Mississippi. "This emigration should be voluntary, for it would be as cruel as unjust to compel the aborigines to abandon the graves

In the 1800’s tensions were rising between the whites and Indians over land. One of the Indian tribes called the Cherokee would be forced to leave their land due to a law passed by Congress called the Indian Removal Act, which detailed the relocation of Indian tribes to a new territory. Because of the law being passed, The Cherokee nation decided to make a strong case to the United States court for keeping their land in Georgia and North Carolina. In their plea to the government, the Cherokee people focused preserving the land of their ancestors and reminding the United States government, they were an independent nation whose rights should be protected under the law.

In 1831, the Cherokee nation went to court against the state of Georgia. They were disputing the state’s attempt to hold jurisdiction over their territory. Unfortunately, because they are not under the laws of the constitution, the Indian’s right to court was denied. It was not until 1835 that the Cherokee finally agreed to sign the treaty, giving up their Georgia land for that of Oklahoma.

By the 1830s, the Americans wanted to expand their territory. To do so, meant taking-over ancestral lands from the Native Americans. In the court case Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the Cherokees fought for defense against the Indian Removal Act and against the Georgia Legislature's nullification of Cherokee laws. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Cherokee had "an unquestionable right" to their lands, although they were not a foreign state. According to the Constitution, the Cherokee nation, a domestic and dependent nation, could not sue in a United States court over Georgia's voiding their right to self-rule. Although it was a devastating case for the Cherokee nation against Georgia, it cast doubt on the constitutionality of the Indian Removal Act. In 1830 a Georgia law had required whites in the territory to get licenses authorizing their residence there, and to take an oath of allegiance to the state. Two New England missionaries among the Indians refused and were sentenced to four years of hard labor. On appeal their case reached the Supreme Court as Worcester v. Georgia (1832), and

The removal of various members of Native American tribes from their indigenous lands to that which was east of the Mississippi was a widely debated topic in the early portion of the 19th century. Morally, proponents of this action cited the fact that these Native Americans were "savages" (Jackson) with no rights to their land; legally, they were expected to adhere to the rights of the states and the federal government of the U.S. Those who were against Indian removal believed that legally they were entitled to their land because of their lengthy history in occupying it, and that morally their rights as people substantiated their claims to the land. A review of both arguments reflects the fact that the latter position is the most convincing.

When the Cherokee Nation sued Georgia state they believed they were going to get justice. In some part during the ruling it was in their favor, they were named to be part of the United States and were Americans not Indians. The supreme court which was mostly ruled by Chief Justice John Marshall; had decided that they had no rights to any of their lands. They also denied them to self-govern because their lack of jurisdiction and they had no court power. Which the Cherokee people were against because they wanted to have full control of their land. It was their land they wanted to be able to do anything they wanted with it and set their own rules ruled. John Marshal disagreed with what they wanted to do and ruled his way. Which then led to Worcester V. Georgia. The verdict in this trial was that they could take away Cherokee land at any given time. They had made it clear that the land of Cherokee was not part of the United State; even though it should had been part of US territory. At the end, they could be forced to relocate and this

Georgia was furious with the Supreme Court’s decision. Nevertheless the Supreme Court’s decision, Georgia made it a primary mission to abolish Indians from their state by moving the Indians out of the east side. So, Georgia rebelled against the Supreme Court’s decision by creating laws that took away any rights the Indians had to the land (Hollitz, 221). Next, Andrew Jackson was voted President. This gave his authority to pass and implement the Indian Removal Act.

John Ross made several trips to Washington to try to get them to let the Cherokees stay on the ancestral land and he succeeded. The court ruled in the Cherokees favor in the Worcester vs. Georgia of 1832. Andrew Jackson did nothing to try to protect the Indians. He gave the Cherokees two years to prepare to move. As the May 1838 dead line arrived the Cherokees were not prepared to move at all. They were determined to remain, to stand their ground. The troops came and dragged the Indians from their homes and they were “… encamped at the forts and military posts, all over the nation “(The Trail of Tears). Most of the people weren’t able to grab their belongings and left with only the clothes on their backs. They made the twelve-hundred mile journey in the middle of a hot and dry summer. Many of the Indians passed away. During this long journey they faced exhaustion, exposure to the heat and sun, hunger, and disease. One fourths of the Cherokees or four thousand out of the fife-teen thousand died on this tragic migration. This was wrong, unmoral, and inhumane for the government to force these people off of their land for their own selfish

In the early 1800s the rapidly growing United State needed to expand its borders to support its people’s needs. Andrew Jackson used his power and influence as the President of the United States to forcefully remove the Cherokee from their land to claim it for the United States. Andrew Jackson’s decision to remove the Cherokee Indians west of the Mississippi in the early 1830s continued the of social, economic, and political policies of the United States but still showed signs of political change as well. .

In the Supreme court case Worcester vs Georgia the court had to decide whether the state of Georgia was going have the authority to regulate relations American citizens and the Cherokee Nation. ( Supreme Court case study 10). The Supreme court decides its final verdict that Worcester should be released because “ The Cherokee nation is a distinct community in which the laws of Georgia can have no force” ( Supreme Court case study 10). Marshall also said that the the Cherokee Nation is protected by the United states government and has the right to govern themselves. After Jackson disobeyed the Supreme Court, in the 1830’s Congress passed the Native American Relocation Act which moved the five civilized tribes west of the Mississippi river into indian territory in present day Oklahoma.

As time had passed, southern states began to speed up the process by posing an argument that is a deal between Georgia and the federal government. The government had no contract so the southern states could pass the law themselves. This arrangement forced the government to pass the Indian Removal Act in May 1830, which President Jackson agreed to divide the United States territory west of the Mississippi. President Jackson promised this land would be owned by the Indians forever. Well In the 1823 case of Johnson v. M’Intosh, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision. It stated that Indians could live in lands within the United States, but could not hold title to those lands .Andrew Jackson had to go against Washington's policy of establishing treaties with Indian tribes as if they were foreigners. So the creation of Indian powers was a violation of state authority under Article5, Section 3 of the Constitution. Jackson thought that either Indians included Free states or they are focus to the laws of existing states of the Union. Jackson pressed Indians to participate and obey state laws. He believed he could only provide changes for all Indian self-rule in federal territories. The Removal Act was strongly supported by non-native people in the

Robert V. Remini argues that Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act of 1830 was socially motivated by humanitarian impulses, and that Jackson’s actions where driven by the desire to save the culture and populace of the Native

In regards to the court ruling in favor of the President, they found that “By the plainest implication it excludes congressional dealing with the appointments or removals of executive officers not falling within the exception and leaves unaffected the executive power of the President to appoint and remove