The Marshall Trilogy Vs. M ' Intosh Essay

733 Words Nov 16th, 2016 3 Pages
We disagree with the opinions in the Marshall Trilogy because while they recognized tribal sovereignty on a fundamental level, their classification of tribal nations as “domestic dependent nations” allowed blurred jurisdiction over land and criminal cases, issues which would prevail through the nineteenth century. In Johnson v. M’Intosh, the Court ruled that the government, not private citizens, could directly purchase land from Native Americans. The question of the priority of the federal government in negotiating with the Tribal Nations would reemerge multiple times within the century. We believe this ruling to be unfair because it further consolidate power to the federal government and greatly restricted the market for tribal land. In 1831, the Marshall Court first introduced the idea of tribal sovereignty in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. The Cherokees argued that they were a foreign nation and the laws of Georgia did not apply to them. The federal government argued that they had the “doctrine of federal trust responsibility” to protect the tribes in return for certain favors. The government’s promise to protect the tribes was implemented poorly, however. The legacy of this case was the classification of the Tribal Nations are a “protectorate” of the federal government stating that they were “In a state of pupilage and subject to the guardianship protection of the federal government.” allowing them to devolve rights and sovereignty on their own terms. For example,…

Related Documents