John Marshall Argumentative Essay

571 Words2 Pages

The rulings made by the John Marshall and the Supreme court regarding the Cherokee and their inhabited land benefited the Cherokee. After decades of losing their land and withstanding the genocide of their people, the younger generations chose to go to court instead of turning to more bloodshed. The Supreme Court came to two conclusions on two different occasions regarding the Cherokee and their lands. The prior ruling stated, in short, that the Cherokee were subject to being protected by the constitution and could not be tried due to their non citizenship. The second ruling further protects the Cherokee from unconstitutional acts conducted by Georgia. These rulings were not only beneficial, but were impartial and withheld constitutionality. President Andrew Jackson made the decision to ignore the supreme court and help Georgia rid itself of Natives. Not even the president is legally permitted to defy the supreme court. Therefore, this action made by Jackson was without a doubt illegal. Not only did …show more content…

This sense of greed would end in the devastation of century old tribes and the death of thousands of Natives. The situation regarding the trail of tears and the removal of Indians from their native territories should have never happened. The Cherokee and all other Native american tribes should have been left alone. Ideally, some form of compromise should have been worked out between the tribes and the United States. The Natives should have never had to move to a designated territory or undergone the trail of tears. Instead, the United States should have negotiated territories so they could still acquire new land while not stealing the natives. The Native tribes had inhabited those lands for centuries and had every right to stay where they wanted. Not only was it unconstitutional, it was also morally wrong and

Open Document