Opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, at January Term, 1832, Delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in the Case of Samuel A. Worcester, Plaintiff in Error, versus the State of Georgia: With a Statement of the Case, Extracted from the Records of the Supreme Court of the United States — John Shaqi
Opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, at January Term, 1832, Delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in the Case of Samuel A. Worcester, Plaintiff in Error, versus the State of Georgia: With a Statement of the Case, Extracted from the Records of the Supreme Court of the United StatesMarshall, John
History
Opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, at January Term, 1832, Delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in the Case of Samuel A. Worcester, Plaintiff in Error, versus the State of Georgia: With a Statement of the Case, Extracted from the Records of the Supreme Court of the United States
Marshall, John
Cherokee Indians -- Missions -- Georgia; Georgia -- Trials, litigation, etc.; Worcester, S. A. (Samuel Austin), 1798-1859 -- Trials, litigation, etc.
The ambiguous phrases which follow the grant of power to the United
States, were so construed by the States of North Carolina and Georgia as
to annul the power itself. The discontents and confusion resulting from
these conflicting claims, produced representations to Congress, which
were referred to a committee, who made their report in 1787. The report
does not assent to the construction of the two States, but recommends an
accommodation, by liberal cessions of territory, or by an admission, on
their part, of the powers claimed by Congress. The correct exposition of
this article is rendered unnecessary by the adoption of our existing
constitution. That instrument confers on Congress the powers of war and
peace; of making treaties, and of regulating commerce with foreign
nations, and among the several States, and _with the Indian tribes_.
These powers comprehend all that is required for the regulation of our
intercourse with the Indians. They are not limited by any restrictions
on their free actions. The shackles imposed on this power, in the
Confederation, are discarded.
The Indian nations had always been considered as distinct, independent
political communities, retaining their original natural rights, as the
undisputed possessors of the soil, from time immemorial, with the
single exception of that imposed by irresistible power, which excluded
them from intercourse with any other European potentate than the first
discoverer of the coast of the particular region claimed: and this was
a restriction which those European potentates imposed on themselves, as
well as on the Indians. The very term, "nation," so generally applied
to them, means "a People distinct from others." The constitution, by
declaring treaties already made, as well as those to be made, to be the
supreme law of the land, has adopted and sanctioned the previous
treaties with the Indian nations, and, consequently, admits their rank
among those Powers who are capable of making treaties. The words
"treaty" and "nation" are words of our own language, selected in our
diplomatic and legislative proceedings, by ourselves, having each a
definite and well understood meaning. We have applied them to Indians,
as we have applied them to the other nations of the earth. They are
applied to all in the same sense.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account