Johnson v. McIntosh: Difference between revisions
m RM caps in section headers, minor fixes. using AWB |
|||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
In a long and philosophical opinion, the Court suggested that the Native Americans owned the land until it was discovered by others; Native Americans had the right of occupancy (like tenants in an apartment building), but could lose occupancy by conquest or purchase. This rule, in turn, was derived from a longstanding agreement by the Western European powers, which the United States kept because it received all lands held by [[Kingdom of Great Britain|Britain]] in the treaty that ended the [[American War of Independence]]. |
In a long and philosophical opinion, the Court suggested that the Native Americans owned the land until it was discovered by others; Native Americans had the right of occupancy (like tenants in an apartment building), but could lose occupancy by conquest or purchase. This rule, in turn, was derived from a longstanding agreement by the Western European powers, which the United States kept because it received all lands held by [[Kingdom of Great Britain|Britain]] in the treaty that ended the [[American War of Independence]]. |
||
Modern critics note the Court's |
Modern critics note the Court's assertion of racial superiority of Europeans over Native Americans, approving the classification of the latter "as an inferior race of people, without the privileges of citizens, and under the perpetual protection and pupilage of the government." This rationale later supported decisions of the Court upholding lesser rights afforded to residents of U.S. territories in the ''[[Insular Cases]]''. |
||
==References== |
==References== |
||
Revision as of 22:00, 19 April 2006
| Johnson v. M'Intosh | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | ||||||||
| Argued --- Decided March 10, 1823 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||
| Native Americans had the right of occupancy but not ultimate title to their lands. | ||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||||
| Ius gentium. |
Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Native Americans did not have the right to sell their lands except to the United States, because the United States had acquired ultimate title to the land based on European discovery.
Facts
The plaintiff, Thomas Johnson bought land from Piankeshaw Indian tribes in 1773 and 1775. The defendant, William M'Intosh (pronounced "McIntosh") was later granted title to this same land by the United States government. Johnson sued M'Intosh for title to the land, claiming that it was his by prior purchase. The District Court of Illinois found for M'Intosh.
Question presented
The Supreme Court was called upon to consider whether Native Americans had the power to give or sell land that had been "discovered" by European powers.
Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court upheld the finding for M'Intosh, ruling that the practices of the conquering European nations recognized that Native Americans have never really been considered "owners" of the land. It was therefore the settled law of the land that Native Americans do not have the power to transfer the property which they occupy to others. The Court found the United States government to have the exclusive power to transfer title of previously undiscovered lands.
In a long and philosophical opinion, the Court suggested that the Native Americans owned the land until it was discovered by others; Native Americans had the right of occupancy (like tenants in an apartment building), but could lose occupancy by conquest or purchase. This rule, in turn, was derived from a longstanding agreement by the Western European powers, which the United States kept because it received all lands held by Britain in the treaty that ended the American War of Independence.
Modern critics note the Court's assertion of racial superiority of Europeans over Native Americans, approving the classification of the latter "as an inferior race of people, without the privileges of citizens, and under the perpetual protection and pupilage of the government." This rationale later supported decisions of the Court upholding lesser rights afforded to residents of U.S. territories in the Insular Cases.
References
- Jean Edward Smith, John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation, New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1996.
External link
- ^ 21 U.S. 543 (Text of the opinion on Findlaw.com)
- Text of the opinion from the University of Tulsa
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |