Question

The natives according to the Cherokee nation v. Georgia were an independent nation. They don't have our laws to protect them. Worcester argues if American laws don't apply to the Cherokee in that scenario, how do they apply to the Cherokee in this scenario?

Answer 1

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Worcester v. Georgia were Supreme Court cases that defined Cherokee sovereignty and limited state power over Native lands. The Court ruled that Georgia could not enforce its laws on Cherokee territory, but President Jackson's refusal to enforce the ruling led to the Trail of Tears.

Step-by-step explanation:

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Worcester v. Georgia

The Supreme Court cases Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832) were pivotal in the legal history of Native American sovereignty and state versus federal authority. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Cherokees were not considered U.S. citizens but a "domestic dependent nation," putting them outside the jurisdiction of state law and foreign nation status. In Worcester v. Georgia, the Court sided with the Cherokee, stating that Georgia's laws could not be enforced in Cherokee territory, asserting the sole authority of the national government over Indian affairs, and recognizing the sovereignty of Native American nations within their own territories.

Despite the Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia, President Andrew Jackson refused to enforce it, leading to the tragic Trail of Tears, where many Cherokee were forcibly removed from their land, and many lost their lives in the process.

Answer 2

In the case of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Supreme Court recognized the Cherokee as an independent nation, acknowledging that they did not fall under American laws and protections. However, Worcester's argument raises a valid question: If American laws do not apply to the Cherokee in one scenario, how can they apply in another?

1. The Cherokee Nation v. Georgia case arose because the state of Georgia was attempting to assert control over Cherokee lands and remove the Cherokee people. The Supreme Court, in its decision, recognized the Cherokee as a sovereign nation and declared that Georgia had no authority over them.

2. Samuel Worcester, a missionary living among the Cherokee, argued that if the Cherokee were considered an independent nation, then they should be protected by international law and treaties, rather than subject to the laws of the United States.

3. Worcester's argument challenges the inconsistency of applying American laws to the Cherokee in some circumstances while denying their application in others. It questions the selective nature of American legal jurisdiction over Native American nations.

4. The Cherokee Nation v. Georgia case highlighted the complex and conflicting relationship between Native American tribes and the United States government. The issue of tribal sovereignty and the extent to which American laws should apply to Native American nations has been a subject of ongoing debate and legal interpretation.

In summary, Worcester's argument raises a valid point about the application of American laws to the Cherokee in different scenarios. The Cherokee Nation v. Georgia case recognized the Cherokee as an independent nation, but the question of legal jurisdiction and the consistency of applying American laws to Native American tribes remains a complex and evolving issue.