Answer:
Read Below
Step-by-step explanation:
In the aftermath of his decision in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), which recognized the sovereignty of Native American tribes and invalidated Georgia's attempts to extend its jurisdiction over Cherokee lands, Chief Justice John Marshall attempted to contain the damage caused by his earlier ruling in Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823), which had established the discovery doctrine as the basis for U.S. Indian policy.
In Johnson v. M'Intosh, Marshall had ruled that European nations had acquired a superior right to the lands they discovered, and that this right had been transferred to the United States upon independence. This doctrine justified the U.S. government's policy of claiming Native American lands and forcing tribes to cede their territories through treaties. However, in Worcester v. Georgia, Marshall recognized that the Cherokee Nation was a distinct political community with inherent sovereignty, and that Georgia's actions violated the Cherokee's treaty rights and their sovereignty.
To contain the damage caused by his earlier decision in Johnson v. M'Intosh, Marshall relied on a narrow interpretation of Worcester v. Georgia that applied only to the Cherokee Nation and did not necessarily extend to other Native American tribes. He also emphasized the importance of treaties in recognizing Native American sovereignty and rights, and suggested that the U.S. government had a duty to protect these rights.
In addition, Marshall's decision in Worcester v. Georgia sparked a debate over the discovery doctrine and its role in U.S. Indian policy. Some legal scholars argued that the doctrine had been superseded by the recognition of Native American sovereignty in Worcester v. Georgia, while others maintained that the doctrine remained a fundamental principle of U.S. Indian law. This debate would continue for decades, and would play a significant role in shaping U.S. policy towards Native Americans.