Cherokee Cases (1/3): Johnson v. M'Intosh
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 08. 2013
- In the early American republic, the Supreme Court, under the leadership of John Marshall, would decide a series of three cases - known as the Marshall Trilogy - that would be foundational in defining the framework within which the U.S. government would operate when interacting with sovereign Indian nations in the United States. In the first of the lectures, professor Lindsay Robertson explores the landmark decision in Johnson v. M'Intosh.
Very helpful ! Thank you Professor Robertson
Thank you for sharing i.e. Indigenous Rights to lands & Jurisprudence
wow, awesome background!
Justice Story writes the opinion to adopt international law: Discovery.
this uh, is very um informative uh
It’s called preemption laws.
This is why they changed our names! Indigenous, American Indians, Color, Negro, Black, Afro-American, Black, African-American, period!
Is there anything that "runs under". Our might be a possable dark seed to some of the layers of the Doctrine of Discovery,,(Domination) do some reseach on works of Portuguese cronicler "Gomes Eanes De Zurara" did his works work there way accross Europe and into internals of political bodys of religious intutions like the Vatican ?
The lies yall tell thiefs
His smirk tells me he too has stolen land. Lol. A person on a separate Continent claiming ownership is laughable.
Just imagine the Mexicans coming north planning a flag and saying they discovered Texas for example. By the Marshall’s reasoning this would mean that Mexicans and then with ownTexas
Justice Marshall, if we take him at face value, agrees with your point exactly: “However extravagant the pretension of converting the discovery of an inhabited country into conquest may appear . . . However this restriction may be opposed to natural right, and to the usages of civilized nations, yet if it be indispensable to that system under which the country has been settled, and be adapted to the actual condition of the two people, it may perhaps be supported by reason, and certainly cannot be rejected by courts of justice.” Johnson v M’intosh, 21 US 543, 591-92 (1823). Of course, that self-reflection didn’t stop him from dictating it as law, and so here we are…