The Supreme Court Cases
According to the case of Johnson v. M’intosh, the united states court said and came in conclusion that the lower court had treated the defendant’s claim to the contested property to be more potent than the plaintiffs’ complaint. The court came to this final decision on the idea that Piankeshaw was unable to convey because they were not the owners, and they never owned it in the traditional sense of the word (The Journ Kades, 20000). The united states have unequivocally acceded to the broad rule by which its civilized inhabitants now hold the country. The power now that is owned by U.S.A to give out the land; thus, the title given out is never questioned. Plaintiffs this being the British claimed that the title to the property was theirs and said that they were granted to them by Piankeshaw Indians before the American Revolution. The district court of Illinois gave the title to park in that form to the defendants basing it on the land granted from the united states. However, plaintiffs sought a review of the district court’s final decision.
In the Worcester v. Georgia legal case, the united states supreme court stated that the country did not have the right to impose rules on native American land. However, President Andrew Jackson refused to put in action the ruling. Worcester argued that Georgia had no reason to extend its laws to Cherokee territory and said that it had violated the U.S constitution. The supreme court agreed with Worcester to rule the case from 5 to 1 March 1832.President Andrew Jackson refused to put in action the supreme court decision (Miles, 1973). Thus the U.S government started forcing out the Cherokee out of their land in 1838. It was popular knowns as Trail of Tears. The landmark case of the supreme court of the united states of America was Worcester v. Georgia. Although it didn’t prevent the Cherokee from being evicted from the land, it was used later to come up with Indian law in the U.S.
The native Americans were under the protection of the united states, thus depicting that protection does not imply the destruction of the protected and the protected, in this case, being the united states of America citizens.
Miles, E. A. (1973). After John Marshall's Decision: Worcester v. Georgia and the Nullification Crisis.
The Journ Kades, E. (2000). The Dark Side of Efficiency: Johnson v. M'Intosh and the Expropriation of American Indian Lands. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 148(4), 1065-1190.al of Southern History, 39(4), 519-544.