10. 12th Feb - The Marshall Trilogy

The Marshall Trilogy (1823–1832)

Three Supreme Court cases under Chief Justice John Marshall defining Native sovereignty and U.S. authority:

  1. Johnson v. McIntosh (1823)

  2. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)

  3. Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

Historical Context

Jurisprudential Shift

  • Late Marshall Court → Constitution protects private property rights

  • Early Taney Court (Jacksonian era) → Constitution serves the “public good”

Meaning of the “Public Good”

  • 18th century: political virtue, civic sacrifice

  • 19th century: economic growth, entrepreneurship, state power

  • By 1830s: increasingly defined as white progress

Jacksonian Democracy

  • Expanded political participation for white men

  • Simultaneously disenfranchised women and people of color

  • Era often described as the “white man’s republic”

1. Johnson v. McIntosh (1823)

Issue

Who had the authority to sell Native land — Native nations or the U.S. government?

Decision

Marshall established the Doctrine of Discovery:

  • European discovery gave sovereign title

  • U.S. inherited this title after the Revolution

  • Native nations had only a “right of occupancy”

  • Only the U.S. could purchase Native land

Significance

  • Denied full Native sovereignty

  • Legally justified U.S. territorial expansion

  • Defined Native nations as politically inferior

2. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)

Background

  • Cherokee adopted:

    • Written language

    • Constitution

    • Plantation economy

    • U.S.-style institutions

  • Georgia passed laws invalidating Cherokee sovereignty

  • Gold discovery intensified pressure

Issue

Was the Cherokee Nation a foreign nation under Article III?

Decision

Marshall ruled:

  • Cherokee were not a foreign nation

  • Defined them as a “domestic dependent nation”

  • Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction

Significance

  • Limited Cherokee legal recourse

  • Created long-lasting legal category still used today

3. Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

Background

  • Samuel Worcester (missionary) arrested under Georgia law for living in Cherokee territory without a license

Issue

Could Georgia regulate U.S. citizens inside Cherokee territory?

Decision

Marshall ruled:

  • No

  • Cherokee Nation is a distinct political community

  • Only the federal government has authority in Native affairs

  • Georgia laws had no force in Cherokee territory

Significance

  • Affirmed Cherokee sovereignty

  • Reasserted federal supremacy over states in Indian affairs

  • Strongest pro-Native sovereignty ruling of the trilogy

Aftermath

Despite Worcester:

  • President Andrew Jackson supported removal

  • Congress passed the Indian Removal Act (1830)

  • Treaty of New Echota (1835) signed by unauthorized Cherokee faction

  • Senate ratified treaty (1836)

  • Forced removal followed

Trail of Tears

  • ~4,000 Cherokee deaths

  • ~10,000 total deaths among removed southeastern tribes

Big Themes

1. Sovereignty

  • Native nations recognized as political communities

  • But sovereignty limited by U.S. dominance

2. Federal vs. State Power

  • Marshall upheld federal authority in Indian affairs

  • States like Georgia aggressively defied it

3. Race & the “Public Good”

  • “Public good” increasingly meant white expansion

  • Manifest Destiny ideology overrode Native rights

4. Law vs. Power

  • Court sometimes protected Native sovereignty

  • Executive branch ignored rulings

  • Military and state force ultimately prevailed

Key Terms

  • Doctrine of Discovery

  • Right of occupancy

  • Domestic dependent nation

  • Indian Removal Act (1830)

  • Treaty of New Echota (1835)

  • Trail of Tears