I've been having a number of discussion with other teachers about the significance of Worcester v. Georgia and nobody can seem to articulate why it's important to the Trail of Tears.

Quote:

---

analyze the reasons for the removal and resettlement of Cherokee Indians during the Jacksonian era, including the Indian Removal Act, Worcester v. Georgia, and the Trail of Tears.

---

As I understand it, the Worcester ruling established that states couldn't interfere with American Indian sovereignty. Here is where I struggle because the Indian Removal Act is a federal law and therefore this ruling should have no impact on the removal of the tribes. Many cite Jackson's alleged quote that he would ignore the ruling but what exact actions would he take, or not take, to ignore the ruling.

Any insight is appreciated.

It looks like Worcester v. Georgia reiterated the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation.

More specifically, it seems to have rejected the notion that Georgia had any jurisdiction in Cherokee lands and that the Cherokee Nation was on par with the federal government and that states could not enter into a direct treaty with an Indian nation.

Also I hate legalese so I'm not sure if I'm even reading it correctly.

The case basically was ignored by the state/Jackson, initially. I believe it's impact is essentially that it informed/was used in later jurisprudence.

Quote:

---

Introduction

Samuel Worcester (17981859) was a Christian missionary to the Cherokees working on Cherokee land within the boundaries of Georgia with a permit to do so from the president of the United States issued pursuant to an act of Congress. When Georgia's law prohibiting non-Cherokees from living on Cherokee land without a state license took effect in 1830, Worcester and other missionaries refused to apply for licenses and protested the law. Worcester and the others were arrested, convicted, and sentenced to four years' hard labor. Worcester and Elias Boudinot (18021839) refused pardons so the case could be appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of protecting Cherokee sovereignty.

Chief Justice John Marshall (17551855) found that the Georgia law was void because it was "repugnant to the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States." Both the state of Georgia and President Andrew Jackson ignored the Court's ruling. Worcester and Boudinot remained in prison.

The Court reached its decision during the nullification crisis between the federal government and the state of South Carolina, in which the latter threatened to declare null and void within the state the federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832. To avoid a confrontation with Georgia as the country dealt with South Carolina, Jackson's vice presidentelect, Martin Van Buren (17821862), organized a compromise. Georgia repealed the specific law under which Worcester and Boudinot were arrested, and the two missionaries accepted a pardon, were released after seventeen months of difficult imprisonment, and went back to work among the Cherokees. Worcester eventually accompanied the Cherokees to Oklahoma and continued to work among them until his death. Boudinot, one of the Cherokee leaders who signed the Treaty of New Echota, believed removal was inevitable. He moved to Indian Territory and was assassinated there in 1839 by opponents of the treaty and the removal.

Although Marshall's opinion did not have an immediate practical effect, it became a cornerstone for the view that the Indian nations were sovereign powers and as such were the proper interlocutors of the federal government, not the states within whose borders they lived. Marshall's opinion is also worth reading for its account of the long encounter between Europeans, Americans, and Native Americans.

The case was decided by a vote of six to one. We omit the concurring opinion of Justice McLean and the dissent of Justice Baldwin. We also omit Chief Justice Marshall's argument establishing the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in the case, a point now well established. Marshall's argument in this matter relied on Article 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.

David Tucker

---

icrymyselftosleep said:

---

It looks like Worcester v. Georgia reiterated the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation.

More specifically, it seems to have rejected the notion that Georgia had any jurisdiction in Cherokee lands and that the Cherokee Nation was on par with the federal government and that states could not enter into a direct treaty with an Indian nation.

Also I hate legalese so I'm not sure if I'm even reading it correctly.

---

Correct. For many sources, it's being portrayed as the case that could have kept the Trail of Tears from happening.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

icrymyselftosleep said:

---

It looks like Worcester v. Georgia reiterated the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation.

More specifically, it seems to have rejected the notion that Georgia had any jurisdiction in Cherokee lands and that the Cherokee Nation was on par with the federal government and that states could not enter into a direct treaty with an Indian nation.

Also I hate legalese so I'm not sure if I'm even reading it correctly.

---

Correct. For many sources, it's being portrayed as the case that could have kept the Trail of Tears from happening.

---

Though that is dependent on the Executive Branch on enforcing the ruling.

Jackson was never going to do that. He was one of the first western presidents and wanted frontier expansion, as did Georgia.

What part of the ruling?