[104] McKim _vs._ Voorhies, 7 Cranch, 279. [105] Green _vs._ Biddle, 8 Wheaton, 1. [106] McCulloch _vs._ Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316. [107] Cohens _vs._ Virginia, 6 Wheaton, 264. [108] Bank of U. S. _vs._ Osborn, 9 Wheaton, 738. [109] Weston _vs._ Charleston, 2 Peters, 449. [110] Cohens _vs._ Virginia. These decisions of the United States Supreme Court were made by judges appointed by all the political parties that had been in power, by those in favor of a strict as well as a liberal construction of the Constitution. Taney, a very eminent jurist, and his associates, judges appointed by the political party predominant in the States that attempted to disrupt the Union, held that the Constitution and the laws of the government were paramount, and announced and maintained their supremacy to the beginning of the rebellion over every State court and State law and constitution.[111] [111] See 22 Howard, 227; Sinnott _vs._ Davenport, 21 Howard, 506; Ableman _vs._ Booth, 5 Howard, 134; Rowan _vs._ Runnells. In these two last cases Taney and the Court put aside the decrees of the Supreme Courts of Wisconsin and Mississippi, because they were in conflict with the powers given to the United States; in the latter case, overruling and even reversing the decision of the Supreme Court of Mississippi as to when its constitution took effect. The action of the State of Georgia in 1832, in a controversy between that State and the United States Supreme Court, has been cited in support of the theory that Georgia maintained the doctrine of State supremacy. In that case the matter never came to an actual conflict. Why the United States decision was not promptly enforced is a matter that it is not here worth while to enter into.[112] It is sufficient to quote the resolutions of the Legislature of the State in 1833, that she abhorred the doctrine of nullification and deplored the revolutionary measures of South Carolina and warned her citizens against adopting that mischievous policy, to show that the State, in her opposition to the christianizing of Cherokee Indians, did not question the supremacy of the United States Government. [112] General Jackson’s sympathy was with Georgia in this matter, and he is reported as saying: “John Marshall has made the decision, now let him execute it.” The missionary that Georgia had imprisoned was, however, released by the State.