Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Worcester v. Georgia
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Worcester v. Georgia are landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases from the early 1830s that addressed the legal status of Native American tribes and their relationship with state and federal governments. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was a "domestic, dependent nation," which limited its sovereignty and the Court's jurisdiction in the case. The ruling came amidst Georgia's attempts to remove the Cherokee from their lands, highlighting the tensions between state interests and federal treaties.
In Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the Court took a different stance, declaring that Georgia's laws violated the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation. This case arose after missionaries were arrested for residing in Cherokee territory without state licenses, and the Court ruled that such state laws were unconstitutional. Together, these decisions presented contradictory views on Native American sovereignty: while acknowledging their dependency on the federal government, the Court also recognized their right to protection from state encroachments. These cases continue to influence discussions on tribal sovereignty and the responsibilities of the federal government toward Native Americans.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Worcester v. Georgia
Significance: Two decisions rendered by the US Supreme Court limited the sovereignty of Native American tribes by placing them under federal protection.
In 1823, the US Supreme Court, with John Marshall as chief justice, made the first serious judicial effort to define the relationship between the federal government and Native Americans. The case, concerning disputed land titles, was Johnson v. McIntosh. The decision was that the federal government was, in effect, the Native Americans’ ultimate landlord and they were the government’s tenants. The Court judged the federal government to be responsible for Native American affairs, including the protection of Native American peoples against state actions that materially affected Native American lives and property.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
During a period in which the federal government and the states were locked in disputes about where the Constitution intended ultimate sovereignty to reside, Georgia contemplated removing Cherokee and Creek peoples from northern and western portions of the state. To legitimize its plans, Georgia charged that when it had agreed, in 1802, to cede its western land claims to the federal government, the latter had agreed to extinguish Native American titles to those lands and then to return them to the state. The federal government had not done so, and Georgia had been obliged to live since with a Native American state within a state. The land-hungry Georgians initiated steps to remove Native Americans, primarily the Cherokee. They denied the relevance of federal treaties with the Cherokee and threatened to use force against federal troops if they were dispatched to protect the tribe. Andrew Jackson’s election as president in 1828 accelerated Georgia’s actions to begin removal, because Jackson, a veteran Indian fighter who deemed Native Americans “savages,” was a proponent of removal.
In December, 1828, the Georgia legislature added Cherokee lands to a number of Georgia counties. Far from being savages, the Cherokee who protested this action had become a successful farming people. Thanks to a syllabary produced by their own Sequoyah, they were literate and has started publishing their own newspaper in February 1828, the Cherokee Phoenix. They instantly assembled a distinguished delegation to appeal to Congress for assistance. This course was applauded by a host of congressmen and public officials—including Daniel Webster and William Wirt— who proclaimed Georgia’s legislation unjust, on moral as well as legal grounds. Nevertheless, in December, 1829, Georgia’s legislature enacted a comprehensive law that essentially nullified all Cherokee laws. Aggravating the Cherokees’ plight was the discovery of gold in the following year in western Georgia, and a gold rush flooded their lands with gold seekers, in violation of Cherokee treaties. Under great pressure, Governor George Gilmer claimed the gold as state property and threatened to oust the Cherokees forcibly. Having failed in Georgia’s courts, the Cherokees, as a last peaceful resort, appealed to the US Supreme Court under Article III, section 2 of the Constitution, which gave the Court original jurisdiction in cases brought under treaties or by foreign nations.
In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, Chief Justice Marshall, who had been sympathetic to Cherokee claims but also was aware of Jackson’s hostility toward both Native Americans and Marshall’s court, dismissed the case in March, 1831. Marshall asserted that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to halt Georgia’s sequestration of Cherokee lands. In doing so, he defined the relationship of the Cherokee to the federal government as that of a “domestic, dependent nation” rather than a sovereign one.
Worcester v. Georgia
Marshall modified his decision in 1832, however, when deciding Worcester v. Georgia. Worcester resulted from a Georgia law enacted in 1831. The law, aimed primarily at white missionaries who were encouraging Cherokee resistance to removal, forbade whites from residing on Cherokee lands without a state license. Georgia arrested, convicted, and sentenced two unlicensed missionaries, Samuel Worcester and Elizur Butler, whom the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions promptly defended, hiring William Wirt as their counsel. Wirt, running as a vice presidential candidate for the National Republican Party and as a presidential candidate for the Anti-Masonic Party, hoped for a decision that would embarrass Jackson.
Because the plaintiffs in Worcester were white missionaries and the defendant the State of Georgia, the Court had clear jurisdiction. Without overruling his Cherokee Nation decision, Marshall ruled in March, 1832, that the Georgia law was unconstitutional and therefore void, because it violated treaties as well as the commerce and contract clauses of the Constitution. Furthermore, Marshall declared, Georgia’s laws violated the sovereignty of the Cherokee nation, and, in this case, the Court was constrained to define relationships between Native Americans and a state.
The Cherokee cases advanced two contradictory descriptions of Native American sovereignty. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, Marshall delineated the dependent relationship of Native American tribes to the federal government. In Worcester, sympathetically stressing historic aspects of Native American independence, nationhood, and foreignness rather than their domestic dependency, he defined the relationship of Native American tribes to the states. Together, these decisions suggested that although Native American tribes lacked sufficient sovereignty to claim political independence and were therefore wards of the federal government, they nevertheless possessed sufficient sovereignty to guard themselves against intrusions by the states, and that it was a federal responsibility to preserve this sovereignty. In subsequent years, these conflicting interpretations were exploited by both the federal government and Native Americans to serve their own purposes.
Bibliography
Adair, James. The History of the American Indians: Particularly Those Nations Adjoining to the Mississippi, East and West Florida, Georgia, South and North Carolina, and Virginia. New York: Cambridge UP, 2013. Print.
Debo, Angie. A History of the Indians of the United States. Norman: U of Oklahoma P, 2013. Print.
Gregg, Matthew T., and David M. Wishart. "The Price of Cherokee Removal." Explorations in Economic History 49.4 (2012): 423–42. Print.
Hagan, William T. American Indians. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2013. Print.
Nichols, Roger L., ed. The American Indian: Past and Present. Norman: U of Oklahoma P, 2014. Print.