Dispute-
Thomas Johnson purchased land from the Piankeshaw Indians in the Northwest Territory in 1775. His purchase of a large plot in Illinois was then peacefully handed down to his heirs until the year of 1818 when conflict arose. William McIntosh purchased 11,000 acres of land within the boundaries of Johnson’s land from Congress. Once the conflicting claims on the territory were realized, Johnson’s heirs sued Mcintosh in the Illinois State Court in an effort to regain the land originally appropriated to them. The District Court of Illinois ruled in favor of McIntosh for the simplistic reason McIntosh’s title was valid because it was granted by a higher authority (Congress). Johnson’s heirs chose to appeal to the Supreme Court, who were then posed with the dilemma: Who’s claim to the land was justified by the letter of the law?
Constitutional Principle in Question: Did Native American Tribes have the right to sell off their land, or were they merely occupants rather than owners of territory? The first of a trilogy of Marshall decisions with Native Americans, the Supreme Court must decide whether it is the exclusive right of Federal Government to take lands from the Native Americans.
Significance-
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the decision of the District Court on the grounds that federal government had the “sole right” of negotiation with the Native American nations. Therefore, Johnson’s purchase was void and the precedent was set Indians did not have the right to sell land to individuals. McIntosh’s claim to the land, deriving in Congress reigned superior to Johnson’s claim from an illegal negotiation with Indian Tribes. Johnson v. McIntosh is a vital part of Marshall Court because, it epitomizes his dealings with the Native Americans, and his desire to vest extended powers in the hands of federal government. This decision, once again authored by Chief Justice John Marshall is highly nationalistic and serves the purpose of expanding powers of the federal government, in this case over the tribes.
Note: The ruling of this case has seemed to be eroded by subsequent case, however, has never been overruled.
Thomas Johnson purchased land from the Piankeshaw Indians in the Northwest Territory in 1775. His purchase of a large plot in Illinois was then peacefully handed down to his heirs until the year of 1818 when conflict arose. William McIntosh purchased 11,000 acres of land within the boundaries of Johnson’s land from Congress. Once the conflicting claims on the territory were realized, Johnson’s heirs sued Mcintosh in the Illinois State Court in an effort to regain the land originally appropriated to them. The District Court of Illinois ruled in favor of McIntosh for the simplistic reason McIntosh’s title was valid because it was granted by a higher authority (Congress). Johnson’s heirs chose to appeal to the Supreme Court, who were then posed with the dilemma: Who’s claim to the land was justified by the letter of the law?
Constitutional Principle in Question: Did Native American Tribes have the right to sell off their land, or were they merely occupants rather than owners of territory? The first of a trilogy of Marshall decisions with Native Americans, the Supreme Court must decide whether it is the exclusive right of Federal Government to take lands from the Native Americans.
Significance-
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the decision of the District Court on the grounds that federal government had the “sole right” of negotiation with the Native American nations. Therefore, Johnson’s purchase was void and the precedent was set Indians did not have the right to sell land to individuals. McIntosh’s claim to the land, deriving in Congress reigned superior to Johnson’s claim from an illegal negotiation with Indian Tribes. Johnson v. McIntosh is a vital part of Marshall Court because, it epitomizes his dealings with the Native Americans, and his desire to vest extended powers in the hands of federal government. This decision, once again authored by Chief Justice John Marshall is highly nationalistic and serves the purpose of expanding powers of the federal government, in this case over the tribes.
Note: The ruling of this case has seemed to be eroded by subsequent case, however, has never been overruled.
Read about a related case dealing with the Federal Government's treatment of the Tribes(Worcester v. Georgia), or look at the next case chronologically (Gibbons v. Ogden)
