How did president jackson respond to the supreme courts ruling in worcester v. georgia that georgia had no right to interfere with the cherokee?

Under Georgia law, whites who wanted to live in the tribal territory of the Cherokees were required to apply for permission. The plaintiffs, seven missionaries, among them Samuel Austin Worcester and Elizur Butler, refused to make such an application. The two were known for their support of the Indians in the fight against relocation, and the authorities had indicated that their application to live on the reserve would be rejected. Finally, the plaintiffs were sentenced to four years of forced labor. Against this, they appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the constituent states of the United States had no authority to intervene in affairs of indigenous peoples on their territory, as this competence lied solely with the federal government.

The decision written by John Marshall made it clear that the relationship between indigenous peoples and the United States is one of two different nations. Marshall justified this by saying that the United States government had taken over the rights of Great Britain after the end of the Revolutionary War. However, these rights, Marshall said, were exhausted in maintaining relations with indigenous peoples, excluding the influence of any other state. However, there is neither ownership of the land of the indigenous people nor the right to rule over it. Marshall acknowledged that such a rule of domination could arise through the conquest or purchase of land. However, this would then have to be exercised by the Federal Government. Since the Cherokee were a distinct group of individuals, managing their own affairs, the Tribunal concluded that only the Federal Government was responsible for regulating relations with the Cherokee.

President Andrew Jackson is credited with the quote in response to the decision. "John Marshall has made his decision. Should he enforce it himself!" The decision became a precedent for subsequent cases involving indigenous peoples. Fearing a power struggle between the judiciary and the executive, the Supreme Court decided not to enforce the ruling by the United States Marshals Service. Thus, President Jackson was given the opportunity not to have to make the decision and so to avoid a political conflict. Despite their victory, Worcester and Butler remained in prison until 1833.

the answer should be founding brothers. i hope i you!

an example of japanese imperial rule that was evident when it placed restrictions on korean rights was that. it assumed control of newspapers and free speech.

unit test review 2 flashcards | quizlet

an example of japanese imperial rule that was evident when it placed restrictions on korean rights was that. it assumed control of newspapers and free speech.

an example of japanese imperial rule that was evident when it placed

› high school › history

2 answers

jun 7, 2016 - an example of japanese imperial rule that was evident when it placed restrictions on korean rights was that. it took away all guns. it squelched nationalist groups. it assumed control of the government.

explanation: