Cherokee Nation v. Georgia

Last updated

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Original jurisdiction
Decided March 18, 1831
Full case nameThe Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia
Citations30 U.S. 1 ( more )
5 Pet. 1; 8 L. Ed. 25; 1831 U.S. LEXIS 337
Case history
PriorOriginal jurisdiction
Outcome
The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to hear a suit brought by the Cherokee Nation. The Court decided that Indian tribes, while retaining some sovereignty, were not foreign nations in the sense required to bring suit in federal court. Justice Marshall emphasized that the Constitution did not envision tribes as fully independent entities.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Marshall
Associate Justices
William Johnson  · Gabriel Duvall
Joseph Story  · Smith Thompson
John McLean  · Henry Baldwin
Case opinions
MajorityMarshall
ConcurrenceJohnson
ConcurrenceBaldwin
DissentThompson, joined by Story
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. III

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case. The Cherokee Nation asked the Court to stop Georgia from enforcing state laws that took away their rights within the Cherokee territory. However, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the cases's merits, stating that is lacked the original jurisdiction, or authority, to decide in a matter between a U.S. state and the Cherokee Nation. Chief Justice John Marshall explained that the Cherokee Nation was not a "foreign nation" but a "domestic dependent nation," comparing their relationship with the United States to that of a "ward to its guardian." [1]

Contents

This case, part of the Marshall Trilogy, set a precedent for how Native American tribes are treated under federal law and unfolded against the backdrop of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, highlighting the growing tensions over tribal sovereignty.

Background

Historical Context

The Cherokee Nation had lived in what is now the southeastern United States for thousands of years. European contact began in 1542 when Hernando de Soto encountered Cherokee villages during his expedition. [2] [3] By the late 17th century, the English began trading with the Cherokee, exchanging goods like firearms for alliances in conflicts such as the Tuscarora War. [4] Over time, the Cherokee integrated aspects of European-American culture, transitioning to a commercial hunting and farming lifestyle by the mid-18th century. [5] In 1775, one Cherokee village was described as having 100 houses, each with a garden, orchard, hothouse, and hog pens. [6]

Cherokee lands in 1830 Cherokeenation1830map.jpg
Cherokee lands in 1830

Treaties, including the Treaty of Hopewell (1785) and the Treaty of Holston (1791), recognized Cherokee sovereignty and established agreements with the U.S. government. [7]

At the start of the 19th century, the Cherokee still controlled about 53,000 square miles (140,000 km2) of land in Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. However, the U.S. government began pressuring the tribe to cede their land, particularly after an 1802 agreement promising Georgia that Cherokee lands would be opened to settlers. By 1817, the Treaty of the Cherokee Agency marked the beginning of the Indian Removal era, promising land west of the Mississippi River in exchange for Cherokee homelands. Despite adopting European-American farming practices and creating a written language and governing system, the Cherokee faced increasing encroachments on their land.

Flag of the Cherokee Nation Flag of the Cherokee Nation.svg
Flag of the Cherokee Nation

Cherokee Nation and the Push for Removal

By the early 19th century, white settlers, eager to expand into new lands, pressured the federal government to remove Native American tribes, including the Cherokee Nation. This pressure stemmed from promises made in the Compact of 1802, in which the U.S. government agreed to extinguish Cherokee land claims in Georgia. [8] While early policies under President Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe varied in their commitment to large-scale removal, the Cherokee faced growing external pressure despite their efforts to adopt European-American cultural practices, including farming and governance systems. President Thomas Jefferson also began to look at removing the tribe from their lands at this time. [9] Congress voted very small appropriations to support the removal, but policy changed under President James Monroe, who did not favor large-scale removal. [10]

At the same time, the Cherokee were adopting some elements from European-American culture. [fn 1] During this period until 1816, numerous other treaties were signed by the Cherokee. In each they ceded land to the United States and allowed for roads to be constructed through Cherokee territory, but also kept the terms of the Holston treaty. [10]

In 1817, the Treaty of the Cherokee Agency [12] marked the beginning of a formal push for removal under the Indian Removal Act. The treaty promised an "acre for acre" land trade, if the Cherokee would leave their homeland and move to areas west of the Mississippi River. [fn 2] [14] However, by 1819, the Cherokee tribal government prohibited further land cessions, even imposing the death penalty for violations. [15] These measures underscored their resolve to defend their sovereignty and territory, but tensions with the state of Georgia escalated. By the 1820s, most of the Cherokee had adopted a farming lifestyle similar to that of neighboring European Americans. [16]

John Ross, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation John Ross of the Cherokee.jpg
John Ross, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation

Georgia’s Role and the Rise of Andrew Jackson

By the 1820s, Georgia aggressively pursued the removal of the Cherokee, leveraging the 1802 Compact as justification. [17] In 1823, the state government and citizens of Georgia began to push for the removal of the Cherokee Nation. Congress responded by appropriating $30,000 to terminate Cherokee title to land in Georgia. [17]

In the fall of 1823, negotiators for the United States met with the Cherokee National Council at the tribe's capital city of New Echota, located in northwest Georgia. Joseph McMinn, noted for being in favor of removal, led the U.S. delegation. [18] When the negotiations to remove the tribe did not go well, the U.S. delegation supposedly resorted to trying to bribe the tribe's leaders. [fn 3]

In 1828, the state legislature of Georgia feared the United States would not enforce the removal of the Cherokee people from their historic lands in the state using federal policy. On December 20, 1828, Georgia passed laws stripping the Cherokee of legal protections within the state to ensure their forced removal.

This state action coincided with the national election of President Andrew Jackson, a long-time proponent of Indian removal. Jackson's administration marked a turning point in federal policy, as he openly supported Georgia's actions and championed the Indian Removal Act of 1830.

The Cherokee Nation, led by Principal Chief John Ross, sought to resist Georgia's state laws. In January 1829, Chief Ross led a delegation to Washington in January 1829 to resolve disputes over the failure of the US government to pay annuities to the Cherokee, and to seek federal enforcement of the boundary between the territory of the state of Georgia and the Cherokee Nation's historic tribal lands within that state. Rather than lead the delegation into futile negotiations with President Jackson, Ross wrote an immediate memorial to Congress, completely forgoing the customary correspondence and petitions to the President. Ross found support in Congress from individuals in the National Republican Party, such as senators Henry Clay, Theodore Frelinghuysen, and Daniel Webster, as well as representatives Ambrose Spencer and David (Davy) Crockett. Despite this support, in April 1829, John H. Eaton, the secretary of war (1829–1831), informed Ross that President Jackson would support the right of Georgia to extend its laws over the Cherokee Nation. In May 1830, Congress endorsed Jackson's policy of removal by passing the Indian Removal Act, which authorized the president to set aside lands west of the Mississippi River to exchange for the lands of Indian nations in the east.

Congress’s passage of the Indian Removal Act further emboldened Georgia and the Jackson administration, setting the stage for legal and physical confrontations. Ross and the Cherokee turned to the courts as a last resort, laying the groundwork for significant legal battles, including Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and the later Worcester v. Georgia (1832).

Legacy of Andrew Jackson’s Policies

Trail of Tears National Historic Trail NPS trail-of-tears-map.pdf
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail

Andrew Jackson’s presidency left a lasting legacy on U.S.-Native relations, solidifying federal support for Indian removal. His policies culminated in the forced displacement of thousands of Native Americans, known as the Trail of Tears, and fundamentally reshaped the legal status of tribes as “domestic dependent nations.” Jackson’s actions and the Cherokee resistance became pivotal moments in the broader history of U.S. expansion, sovereignty disputes, and Native American rights.

The Case: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia

Former U.S. Attorney General, William Wirt WilliamWirt.png
Former U.S. Attorney General, William Wirt

In June 1830, a delegation of Cherokee led by Chief John Ross and represented by William Wirt, a former United States attorney general in the Monroe and Adams administrations, were selected to bring a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Backed by supporters such as Senators Daniel Webster and Theodore Frelinghuysen, the Cherokee Nation sought an injunction against Georgia. They argued that Georgia's state legislation had created laws aimed to "annihilate the Cherokees as a political society." The Cherokee claimed that Georgia’s actions violated U.S.–Cherokee treaties, the U.S. Constitution, and federal laws regulating interactions with Native tribes.

Wirt contended that the Cherokee Nation qualified as a "foreign nation" under the Constitution and therefore had standing to sue. He asked the Court to nullify Georgia’s laws extending over Cherokee territory. Georgia countered by arguing that the Cherokee lacked standing as a foreign nation, citing their absence of a constitution and centralized government. Wirt argued that "the Cherokee Nation [was] a foreign nation in the sense of our constitution and law" and was not subject to Georgia's jurisdiction.

Wirt asked the Supreme Court to void all Georgia laws extended over Cherokee lands on the grounds that they violated the U.S. Constitution, United States–Cherokee treaties, and United States intercourse laws.

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, agreed to hear the case but declined to rule on the merits of the case. The Court determined that the framers of the Constitution did not consider the Indian Tribes as foreign nations but more as "domestic dependent nation[s]" and consequently the Cherokee Nation lacked the standing to sue as a "foreign" nation.

Chief Justice John Marshall John Marshall by Henry Inman, 1832.jpg
Chief Justice John Marshall

Key Opinions [1]

Majority Opinion (Chief Justice John Marshall): Marshall concluded that Indian tribes, while retaining some sovereignty, were not foreign nations in the sense required to bring suit in federal court. He emphasized that the Constitution did not envision tribes as fully independent entities. [20]

Justice William Johnson (Concurring): Johnson described tribes as "nothing more than wandering hordes, held together only by ties of blood and habit, and having neither rules nor government beyond what is required in a savage state." [21] with no formal governance beyond blood ties and habits, underscoring their perceived lack of status as sovereign entities.

Dissenting Opinion (Justice Smith Thompson, joined by Justice Joseph Story): Thompson argued that the Cherokee Nation was a foreign state based on its ability to self-govern and enter treaties. He held that Georgia's laws violated federal treaties and acts of Congress, causing significant harm to the Cherokee. He supported the injunction against Georgia.

Aftermath and Legacy

Aftermath

One year later, in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed its stance, ruling that the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign entity. Chief Justice John Marshall emphasized that state laws had no authority within Cherokee territory, as the federal government had recognized Native nations as distinct political communities through treaties. This landmark decision established a critical precedent for federal protection of Native sovereignty.

Despite the ruling, President Andrew Jackson famously refused to enforce it, reportedly saying, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Jackson directed the military to proceed with the removal of the Cherokee Nation, culminating in the Trail of Tears (1838–1839). Over 4,000 Cherokee citizens died during this forced migration to Indian Territory, a tragic event that marked the violent erosion of Native rights and lands. [22]

Map of Oklahoma showing the current location of the Cherokee Nation highlighted in red. CherokeeOSTA.svg
Map of Oklahoma showing the current location of the Cherokee Nation highlighted in red.

Today, the Cherokee Nation is primarily located in northeastern Oklahoma, where it was forcibly relocated. It is one of the largest federally recognized tribes in the United States, with over 400,000 enrolled members. The Cherokee Nation maintains a sovereign government and oversees services such as healthcare, education, and economic development for its citizens, continuing to uphold its cultural and political legacy despite historical injustices.

Legacy

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Cherokee Nation’s claims in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia reflected the limitations of Native sovereignty under U.S. law and set the stage for continued federal and state encroachments on tribal autonomy. However, the subsequent Worcester v. Georgia decision has had enduring significance. It remains a cornerstone of legal arguments asserting tribal sovereignty and the federal government’s obligation to honor treaties.

Today, Native sovereignty is recognized as a fundamental principle of U.S. law, though it continues to face challenges. Tribes are considered "domestic dependent nations," retaining inherent rights to self-governance, control over their lands, and the ability to regulate their members and economic activities. However, conflicts persist over issues like jurisdiction, land rights, and resource management.

Modern Native advocacy often draws on Worcester v. Georgia to challenge federal and state policies that infringe on tribal sovereignty. Recent cases, such as McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020), reaffirmed the principle that treaties with Native nations must be upheld, reinforcing tribal jurisdiction over their historic lands. These rulings highlight the lasting impact of the Cherokee Nation’s legal battles on contemporary interpretations of Native sovereignty.

See also

Notes

  1. By 1809 the tribe had a permanent police force, in 1817 the tribe had established a bicameral legislature, and by 1827 they had a written constitution and court. [11]
  2. Most of the tribe was opposed to removal, and within a few years had successfully petitioned the federal government to prevent it. [13]
  3. The commissioners, working through a Creek Indian chief, offered to give each Cherokee leader $2,000, equivalent to $38,328 in 2012. The chiefs rejected the bribe by denouncing it in front of the tribal council. [19]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian removal</span> Early 19th-century United States domestic policy

The Indian removal was the United States government's policy of ethnic cleansing through the forced displacement of self-governing tribes of American Indians from their ancestral homelands in the eastern United States to lands west of the Mississippi River—specifically, to a designated Indian Territory, which many scholars have labeled a genocide. The Indian Removal Act of 1830, the key law which authorized the removal of Native tribes, was signed into law by United States president Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830. Although Jackson took a hard line on Indian removal, the law was primarily enforced during the Martin Van Buren administration. After the enactment of the Act, approximately 60,000 members of the Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations were forcibly removed from their ancestral homelands, with thousands dying during the Trail of Tears.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trail of Tears</span> Forced relocation and ethnic cleansing of the southeastern Native American tribes

The Trail of Tears was the forced displacement of approximately 60,000 people of the "Five Civilized Tribes" between 1830 and 1850, and the additional thousands of Native Americans and their enslaved African Americans within that were ethnically cleansed by the United States government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian Removal Act</span> Law authorizing the removal of Native Americans from US states

The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was signed into law on May 28, 1830, by United States President Andrew Jackson. The law, as described by Congress, provided "for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories, and for their removal east of the river Mississippi". During the presidency of Jackson (1829–1837) and his successor Martin Van Buren (1837–1841) more than 60,000 Native Americans from at least 18 tribes were forced to move west of the Mississippi River where they were allocated new lands. The southern tribes were resettled mostly in Indian Territory (Oklahoma). The northern tribes were resettled initially in Kansas. With a few exceptions, the United States east of the Mississippi and south of the Great Lakes was emptied of its Native American population. The movement westward of indigenous tribes was characterized by a large number of deaths occasioned by the hardships of the journey.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek</span> 1831 land cession treaty between the U.S. Government and the Choctaw tribe

The Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek was a treaty which was signed on September 27, 1830, and proclaimed on February 24, 1831, between the Choctaw American Indian tribe and the United States Government. This treaty was the first removal treaty which was carried into effect under the Indian Removal Act. The treaty ceded about 11 million acres (45,000 km2) of the Choctaw Nation in what is now Mississippi in exchange for about 15 million acres (61,000 km2) in the Indian territory, now the state of Oklahoma. The principal Choctaw negotiators were Chief Greenwood LeFlore, Mosholatubbee, and Nittucachee; the U.S. negotiators were Colonel John Coffee and Secretary of War John Eaton.

Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court vacated the conviction of Samuel Worcester and held that the Georgia criminal statute that prohibited non-Native Americans from being present on Native American lands without a license from the state was unconstitutional. The opinion is most famous for its dicta, which laid out the relationship between tribes, state, and federal governments. It is considered to have built the foundations of the doctrine of tribal sovereignty in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Ross (Cherokee chief)</span> 1st principal chief of the Cherokee Nation

John Ross was the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation from 1828 to 1866; he served longer in that position than any other person. Ross led the nation through such tumultuous events as forced removal to Indian Territory and the American Civil War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tribal sovereignty in the United States</span> Type of political status of Native Americans

Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the concept of the inherent authority of Indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States.

Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case deciding that Indian tribal courts have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The case was decided on March 6, 1978 with a 6–2 majority. The court opinion was written by William Rehnquist, and a dissenting opinion was written by Thurgood Marshall, who was joined by Chief Justice Warren Burger. Justice William J. Brennan did not participate in the decision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bureau of Indian Affairs</span> US government agency

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), also known as Indian Affairs (IA), is a United States federal agency within the Department of the Interior. It is responsible for implementing federal laws and policies related to Native Americans and Alaska Natives, and administering and managing over 55,700,000 acres (225,000 km2) of reservations held in trust by the U.S. federal government for indigenous tribes. It renders services to roughly 2 million indigenous Americans across 574 federally recognized tribes. The BIA is governed by a director and overseen by the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, who answers to the Secretary of the Interior.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian reservation</span> Land managed by Native American nations under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs

An American Indian reservation is an area of land held and governed by a U.S. federal government-recognized Native American tribal nation, whose government is autonomous, subject to regulations passed by the United States Congress and administered by the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, and not to the U.S. state government in which it is located. Some of the country's 574 federally recognized tribes govern more than one of the 326 Indian reservations in the United States, while some share reservations, and others have no reservation at all. Historical piecemeal land allocations under the Dawes Act facilitated sales to non–Native Americans, resulting in some reservations becoming severely fragmented, with pieces of tribal and privately held land being treated as separate enclaves. This intersection of private and public real estate creates significant administrative, political, and legal difficulties.

The Nonintercourse Act is the collective name given to six statutes passed by the United States Congress in 1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834 to set boundaries of American Indian reservations. The various acts were also intended to regulate commerce between White Americans and citizens of Indigenous nations. The most notable provisions of the act regulate the inalienability of aboriginal title in the United States, a continuing source of litigation for almost 200 years. The prohibition on purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government has its origins in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Treaty of New Echota</span> 1835 treaty between the U.S and a Cherokee faction

The Treaty of New Echota was a treaty signed on December 29, 1835, in New Echota, Georgia, by officials of the United States government and representatives of a minority Cherokee political faction, the Treaty Party.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Samuel Worcester</span> Christian missionary to Cherokee (1798-1859)

Samuel Austin Worcester, was an American missionary to the Cherokee, translator of the Bible, printer, and defender of the Cherokee sovereignty. He collaborated with Elias Boudinot (Cherokee) in Georgia to establish the Cherokee Phoenix, the first Native American newspaper, which was printed in both English and the Cherokee syllabary. The Cherokee gave Worcester the honorary name A-tse-nu-sti, which translates to "messenger" in English.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cultural assimilation of Native Americans</span> By the US, into European–American culture

A series of efforts were made by the United States to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream European–American culture between the years of 1790 and 1920. George Washington and Henry Knox were first to propose, in the American context, the cultural assimilation of Native Americans. They formulated a policy to encourage the so-called "civilizing process". With increased waves of immigration from Europe, there was growing public support for education to encourage a standard set of cultural values and practices to be held in common by the majority of citizens. Education was viewed as the primary method in the acculturation process for minorities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title in the United States</span> First country to recognize aboriginal title

The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title. Native American tribes and nations establish aboriginal title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a "long time." Individuals may also establish aboriginal title, if their ancestors held title as individuals. Unlike other jurisdictions, the content of aboriginal title is not limited to historical or traditional land uses. Aboriginal title may not be alienated, except to the federal government or with the approval of Congress. Aboriginal title is distinct from the lands Native Americans own in fee simple and occupy under federal trust.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title in the Marshall Court</span> Court era recognizing Native American tribal rights

The Marshall Court (1801–1835) issued some of the earliest and most influential opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States on the status of aboriginal title in the United States, several of them written by Chief Justice John Marshall himself. However, without exception, the remarks of the Court on aboriginal title during this period are dicta. Only one indigenous litigant ever appeared before the Marshall Court, and there, Marshall dismissed the case for lack of original jurisdiction.

Fellows v. Blacksmith, 60 U.S. 366 (1857), is a United States Supreme Court decision involving Native American law. John Blacksmith, a Tonawanda Seneca, sued agents of the Ogden Land Company for common law claims of trespass, assault, and battery after he was forcibly evicted from his sawmill by the Company's agents. The Court affirmed a judgement in Blacksmith's favor, notwithstanding the fact that the Seneca had executed an Indian removal treaty and the Company held the exclusive right to purchase to the land by virtue of an interstate compact ratified by Congress.

Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the State of Arizona does not have jurisdiction to try a civil case between a non-Indian doing business on a reservation with tribal members who reside on the reservation, the proper forum for such cases being the tribal court.

United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that lands designated as a reservation in Mississippi are "Indian country" as defined by statute, although the reservation was established nearly a century after Indian removal and related treaties. The court ruled that, under the Major Crimes Act, the State has no jurisdiction to try a Native American for crimes covered by that act that occurred on reservation land.

Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 294 (1902) was a US Supreme Court case that decided the US Congress has the power to pass legislation that controls the actions and property of tribal states without their consent. The Cherokee Nation brought this case against the Secretary of the Interior because the Secretary authorized mineral and oil leases on Cherokee land, an action Congress had authorized by legislation. The Cherokee Nation argued that this action violated the treaty rights promised by the US to their Indian nation. In their decision, the Court stated this was out of the Court’s power as it was a question for the legislative branch to determine, not the judicial.

References

  1. 1 2 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet. ) 1 (1831).
  2. Robert J. Conley, The Cherokee Nation: A History 18–19 (2005)
  3. Russell Thornton, C. Matthew Snipp, & Nancy Breen, The Cherokees: A Population History 10–11 (1992).
  4. Conley, supra at 21–22; Thornton, supra at 19.
  5. Conley, supra at 40–41.
  6. Woodward, supra at 48.
  7. Treaty with the Cherokee of 1791, July 2, 1791, 7  Stat.   39.
  8. Cherokee Removal: Before and After xi (William L. Anderson, ed. 1992).
  9. Eaton, supra at 21.
  10. 1 2 Eaton, supra at 20.
  11. William G. McLoughlin, Cherokee Ghost Dance: Essays on the Southeastern Indians, 1789–1861 74–76 (1984); Eaton, supra at 17.
  12. Treaty with the Cherokee of 1817, July 8, 1817, 7  Stat.   156
  13. Eaton, supra at 29–31.
  14. Starr, supra at 39.
  15. Eaton, supra at 35–36.
  16. Bryan H. Wildenthal, Native American Sovereignty on Trial: A Handbook With Cases, Laws, and Documents 36 (2003).
  17. 1 2 Eaton (1914) , p. 39
  18. Eaton, supra at 40–41.
  19. Eaton, supra at 42–46.
  20. "Worcester v. Georgia." Oyez. Accessed 03 Aug. 2014. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1832/1832_2
  21. Cherokee Nation v Georgia 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) at 190.
  22. "The Trail of Tears." pbs.org. Accessed 15 Oct. 2012. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h1567.html

Bibliography

Further reading