Cherokee Nation V. Georgia Case Study

In this document the author writes about how the Cherokees wrote to the honorable senate and house of representatives of the United States Of America. In the letter it talks about how the people from the Cherokee Nation felt and questioning why would someone take their place were they always lived and had their own culture. The one who wrote this letter to the senate and house of representatives states that when they step to dry land they first met the red man who was first ignorant and savage, but he still received them kindly and let them rest their weary feet. One of the major argument is that the author writes about how the Cherokees or all Indians were once living a traditional life in their land that their fathers have left for them

filed with the U.S. Supreme Court an action challenging the authority of Georgia's laws. The Cherokees disputed that the laws desecrated their chief rights as a nation and criminally interfered into their treaty relationship with the United States. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the court held that it did not have the authority to strike down Georgia's laws. In dicta that became particularly important in American Indian law, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that the Cherokees constituted a "private, dependent nation" that existed under the custody of the United States.

Georgia, a missionary named Samuel Worcester was caught preaching on Cherokee lands. According to laws in Georgia at the time, this was illegal without a permit, and so they threw him in jail. Worcester filed a law suit against the state of Georgia, stating that they did not have the authority to control what happened within the Cherokee Nation. The courts of course sided with Worcester as the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign district and the state had no authority there. Although the United States claims to have the best interest only for the Native American peoples with its promises of protection and services, it also treats them like lower class citizens or foreigners who need handouts. The only thing Native American need is respect and to have the land they deserve given over to them

They were declared a dependent sovereign state and only the federal government had any say so in their affairs. Treaties were signed and land was sacrificed in order to retain some semblance of independence but the states got greedy and wanted it all. It was the Indians who followed the treaties and never went after their lost land or left their borders but the Americans continued to encroach on them. The Memorial Of the Cherokee Nation explained how Indians were tricked into selling land that belonged to the Nation so that Indian territory became American territory despite the people having no right to sell land given to the Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee government fought the breaks in the treaties but the judicial decision was overruled and the Cherokees were still forced to move. Besides the breaches in the treaties, the Cherokee tribe was one of the five assimilated tribes meaning they adopted European customs and religions. The Cherokee had become civilized as was the European’s goal and they fought their battle through the legal system not in a war. In this sense, the Indian Removal was unjust and

     In Georgia, the Cherokee Indians had developed a lifestyle that included schools, mills, and turnpikes. In the 1820's, under pressure from the state to give up their lands, they wrote a constitution, hired lawyers, and sued in the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall upheld the rights of the Cherokee against Georgia. However, Jackson refused to carry out the decision that ordered Georgia to return Cherokee lands. He is quoted as to have said, "Marshall has made his opinion, now let him enforce it."

As a member of the Cherokee Nation, I must stand up for the rights of my people and challenge the removal of our nation. I know that we do not have much money and that the rich have most of the control and they can bend rules to their liking, but every man is entitled to be protected by the law. The "evils" do not have to exist in the government, they only exist because the rich allow and want them to. Just because it is profitable for the rich to take over our land, does not mean that they have the right to just take it from us and make us move to the land we know nothing about where we could possibly be unwelcome by other Indian tribes. The rich should not make all of the decisions. The law is the law and just because someone has money, does

When most people hear of Native Americans, they cannot help but think of elaborate headdresses, red skinned warriors, and lively dancing. Although these aspects of Native American culture are fascinating, more important is where they fare in our society 's past and present. Restrictive laws and acts such as the Indian Removal Act, the Indian Reorganization Act, Fort Laramie treaties, and the Trail of Tears forced Native Americans from their lands. When settlers and the American government saw the resistance of Native Americans to forced assimilation, they resorted to racial discrimination and relocation to reservations. This history of discrimination has fueled calls for the United States government to pay reparations and the return of Native Americans to their indigenous lands.

The government attempted to uphold relations with the Indians on the condition that they establish themselves in the beliefs and values of the United States people (Jackson, First Annual Message to Congress, 2). They wanted the Indians to be of the Christian faith and to learn their practices, such as their agricultural lifestyle and techniques, to help civilize and assimilate the Indian people. This really just rooted the settler’s supremacist temperament into place. The Supreme Court did back the Indians temporarily in the Worcester v. Georgia trial, in which the United States Supreme Court held that “the Cherokee Indians constituted a nation holding distinct sovereign powers” (Garrison, Worcester v. Georgia, 1). While it seemed a concerted effort, it eventually led to the forced signing of the Cherokee people at the “Cherokee capital of New Echota”, and furthermore, to the Trail of Tears and the downfall of the Indian nation (Garrison, Worcester v. Georgia, 1). The Americans ultimately made a frail attempt at civil dealings with the Indian people and their tribes, but when the Indians refused, the government used unnecessary force and aggression to get what they

In 1831, the Cherokee nation went to court against the state of Georgia. They were disputing the state’s attempt to hold jurisdiction over their territory. Unfortunately, because they are not under the laws of the constitution, the Indian’s right to court was denied. It was not until 1835 that the Cherokee finally agreed to sign the treaty, giving up their Georgia land for that of Oklahoma.

Most of us have learnt about the Trail of Tears as an event in American history, but not many of us have ever explored why the removal of the Indians to the West was more than an issue of mere land ownership. Here, the meaning and importance of land to the original Cherokee Nation of the Southeastern United States is investigated. American land was seen as a way for white settlers to profit, but the Cherokee held the land within their hearts. Their removal meant much more to them than just the loss of a material world. Historical events, documentations by the Cherokee, and maps showing the loss of Cherokee land work together to give a true Cherokee

The Cherokee role in the American society was an ongoing battle amongst closed minds and sheer ignorance to rights of original land owners. For years the fight over land was the dividing instrument amongst the new citizens of a new, free country and the traditions of the Cherokee people was being pushed back into the west.

. . regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The Constitution further enumerates these powers denied to the states in Article I section x. The state of Georgia challenged the federal government’s power over states rights, a precursor to the Civil War, when it challenged the trust relationship and the autonomy of the Cherokee. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in three decisions (Marshall Trilogy) upheld the United States’ federal power, defined the responsibility of the doctrine of federal trust, and clarified the sovereignty of Indian nations: Johnson v McIntosh 1823, Cherokee v Georgia 1831, Worcester v Georgia 1832.

To go more indepth about this topic Native Americans were faced with many injustices. They were being forced from their land by Georgia and many other states:

Until 1828, the federal government agreed that Cherokee had rights to their land, but when Andrew Jackson was elected President, that all ended. Jackson refused to believe that the tribes were sovereign and thus viewed Indian treaties, as an absurdity

The Cherokee Nation wanted federal order against Georgia’s passed laws. The laws that were passed were extremely wrong, hateful and they stripped the power of human rights of the Tribe. The Cherokee Nation believed that Georgia was violating the 3rd article in the constitution.The 3rd Article of the Constitution describes the judicial power. The 2nd Section states that the Supreme court has the choice of listening to any case they please. They believed that Georgia was depriving them of rights to the land that they had claimed as their own. The Cherokee tribe had the rights to the land because of a previous