What was cherokee nation v georgia

In the general, nations not owing a common allegiance are foreign to each other. The term foreign nation is, with strict propriety, applicable by either to the other. But the relation of the Indians to the United States is marked by peculiar and cardinal distinctions which exist no where else. The Indian territory is admitted to compose a part of the United States. In all our maps, geographical treaties, histories, and laws, it is so considered. In all our intercourse with foreign nations, in our commercial regulations, in any attempt at intercourse between Indians and foreign nations, they are considered as within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, subject to many of those restraints which are imposed upon our own citizens.

They acknowledge themselves in their treaties to be under the protection of the United States; they admit that the United States shall have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the trade with them, and managing all their affairs as they think proper; and the Cherokees in particular were allowed by the treaty of Hopewell, which preceded the constitution, "to send a deputy of their choice, whenever they think fit, to congress.

Though the Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable, and, heretofore, unquestioned right to the lands they occupy, until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our government; yet it may well be doubted whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States can, with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. They may, more correctly be denominated domestic dependent nations. They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will, which must take effect in point of possession when their right of possession ceases.

Meanwhile, they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian. They look to our government for protection; rely upon its kindness and its power; appeal to it for relief to their wants; and address the president as their great father. They and their country are considered by foreign nations, as well as by ourselves, as being so completely under the sovereignty and dominion of the United States, that any attempt to acquire their lands, or to form a political connexion with them, would be considered by all as an invasion of our territory, and an act of hostility.

These considerations go far to support the opinion, that the framers of our constitution had not the Indian tribes in view, when they opened the courts of the union to controversies between a state or the citizens thereof, and foreign states.

In considering this subject, the habits and usages of the Indians, in their intercourse with their white neighbours, ought not to be entirely disregarded. At the time the constitution was framed, the idea of appealing to an American court of justice for an assertion of right or a redress of wrong, had perhaps never entered the mind of an Indian or of his tribe. Their appeal was to the tomahawk, or to the government. This was well understood by the statesmen who framed the constitution of the United States, and might furnish some reason for omitting to enumerate them among the parties who might sue in the courts of the union.

Article III of the U. Constitution gives the Court jurisdiction over cases "between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.

In the majority opinion, it answered three questions to address this issue. Is the Cherokee Nation considered a state?

However, the Court ruled that it was not a state in the same way that Georgia was because it was not part of the Union. Is the Cherokee Nation a foreign state? According to the majority opinion, the Cherokee Nation's complex relationship with the U. Justice Marshall wrote in the majority opinion:. The Court needed to establish that the Cherokee Nation was either a U. Instead, the Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was a "domestic, dependent nation.

Regardless of jurisdiction, should the Supreme Court grant an injunction? The Supreme Court ruled that even if it did have jurisdiction, it still should not grant an injunction.

According to the majority opinion, the Court would overstep its judicial authority if it prevented the Georgia legislature from enacting its laws. Justice Smith Thompson dissented, arguing that the Supreme Court did have jurisdiction over the case.

The Cherokee Nation should be considered a foreign state, according to Justice Thompson, because the government had always dealt with the Cherokee Nation as a foreign state when entering into treaties. He argued that the way the Cherokee Nation was treated by Congress when signing treaties was more relevant than analyzing word choice in the Constitution.

Justice Thompson also wrote that the Supreme Court should grant an injunction. Justice Joseph Story joined him in the dissent. Georgia meant that the Cherokee Nation did not have legal recourse against Georgia laws that sought to force them off their land. The Cherokee Nation did not give up and attempted to sue again in Worcester v. Georgia Supreme Court. This is the judgment denying the Cherokee Nation an injunction against Georgia laws, and dismissing their bill of complaints.

The issue of "tribal sovereignty" would come up again in Worcester v. Georgia in This document was digitized by teachers in our Primarily Teaching summer workshop in Washington, D. On consideration of the Bill of the complainants and the motion made in this court on a prior day of this term, towit; On Saturday the 5th day of March by M.

Sergeant of counsel for the Complainant for writs of subpoena and injunction as payed for in the Bill of the Complainants which was on said day read in open Court; and of the arguments of Mis.

Sergeant and Writ counsel for the complainants thereon had a subsequent and ensuing day of the same term; It is now here ordered adjudged and decreed by the this Court that the motion for the Injunction in this cause be and the same is hereby denied and overruled and that the Bill of the Complainants be and the same is hereby dismissed.

William Thomas Carroll clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of the order and decree of said Supreme Court made in the above entitled cause at January Term The Court, in Cherokee Nation v.

Georgia, ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and could not resolve it. The Court began by sympathizing with the Cherokees' plight, acknowledging that they had been persecuted and marginalized by America's European settlers, then asserted that Indian nations were both "foreign nations" and people within U.

In other words, the Cherokee, though sometimes viewed as an independent nation, were also dependent people on the nation that envelopes them. Thus, the Court asserted that "foreign nations," as used in the Constitution, could not include "Indian nations. Meanwhile, in , Georgia passed another law requiring its citizens to obtain a state license before dwelling inside the Cherokee Nation.

A group of missionaries residing there, including Samuel Austin Worcester, refused to obtain such a license. The missionaries were known supporters of Cherokee resistance to Georgia's removal efforts. Worcester and a fellow missionary were indicted by a Georgia court, brought to trial, and convicted.