tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7536265591661518152.post2975024512591037277..comments2024-03-13T09:09:48.146-07:00Comments on Law School Case Briefs | Legal Outlines | Study Materials: Johnson v. M’Intosh case brief summaryLawSchoolCaseBriefs.nethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16912283726092434270noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7536265591661518152.post-78228346375082995202014-05-20T08:03:03.929-07:002014-05-20T08:03:03.929-07:00Johnson v. M’Intosh
a Πs claim territorial... Johnson v. M’Intosh<br /><br />a Πs claim territorial lands under a purchase and conveyance from Native Americans. <br /><br />b Δ claims title to the land under a later grant from U.S. <br /><br />c Not disputed Chiefs who conveyed the land were the ones who had the power to do so.<br /><br />d The right to take the land, even when the land is in previous possession by Native Americans, is a right granted by the crown and established here.<br /><br />e While Europeans respected the natives as occupants, the Europeans asserted ultimate dominion over the land, and as a result could convey the land and split up the land however it wanted, despite natives having lived on the land for hundreds of years before. <br /><br />f Indians cannot sell the property, but can enter into agreements with the federal government for rights to occupy the land<br /><br />g It has never been doubted, that either the U.S., or the States, had a clear title to all the lands within the boundary lines described in the Revolutionary treaty, subject only to the native American right of occupancy, and that the exclusive power to extinguish that right, was vested in that government which might constitutionally exercise it. <br /><br />h The land in question was conveyed in the treaty from England to the States, and all parties who had land conveyed to them were bona fide purchasers. No native claims could supercede an American's claim, for they now had title to the land, and title was power. Thus, if land conveyed by natives was null, and Americans had all power to convey title, then any conveyance by the U.S. trumps a native conveyance, no matter when it took place.<br /><br />i Not clear where the United States gets right to do this.<br /><br />ii Notes: Steroetypes of Savagery<br /><br />a Marshall suggested that the reason for the policy of separate autonomous treatment of Indians was that the natives were “fierce savages” and therefore could not be subjected to assimilation<br /><br />b Marshall’s opinion is almost contemporaneous with the appearance of important literary works such as The Last of the Mohicans which depicts the “noble savage”<br /><br />c In particular, the common understanding that Europeans “settled” North America has at least three different implications:<br /><br />1 It implies that the preexisiting populations did not classify as humanity<br /><br />2 It dismisses the Indians’ ability to wrest a generally satisfactory living from the wilderness and to travel over established trails to known destinations<br /><br />3 Provides bland misdirection about the Europeans’ intentions, for their common purpose was to exploit rather than to settle.LawSchoolCaseBriefs.nethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16912283726092434270noreply@blogger.com