3/31/08
Doug Ahlgren
Rapporteur
Federal Responsibility over Indian Affairs
John Marshall is credited with the development of much case law in favor of the Indians. However, at times the John Marshall court also passed decisions which seemed in contradiction to much of Marshall’s personal ideals. It is important to note the John Marshall at this time was as much a judge as a politician and he was also responsible for establishing the role that the Supreme Court would play in the new and fragile country. Marshall had to walk a fine line between idealism, justice, and practical politically acceptable action. There were many others, even on the Supreme Court, who believed that the Indians had no sovereign rights at all.
In the early days as illustrated in Johnson v Macintosh the Indians were viewed as tenants and could be “evicted” at the will of the landlord. The landlord of course being the President. Later through John Marshall’s writings and other actions of the Supreme Court the Indian relationship came to be viewed more as a ward to a guardian. This relationship implies that the US government actually has a fiduciary duty to look after the well being of the Indians. This idea ultimately came to pervade all debates surrounding US and Indian affairs.
This is partly because the justices on the court had very different opinions. This is also probably due to the fact that at this point in history there was no precedence on which to base their rulings. Hence it was necessary for the Supreme Court to “improvise”, if you will, in order to try to find the best decision. Also there was the matter of how to define the Indians. Should they be classified as fully independent sovereign nations or as domestic dependent nations, or perhaps not even as nations at all? Add to this the fact that the position of the Supreme Court was not yet fully established and the knowledge that a highly controversial ruling could have been unenforceable and it is a wonder that court did not contradict itself more often.
In the early days the roles of the three pillars of the US government were not clearly defined. Nobody really knew if the Executive branch or the Supreme Court would have more power than the other. The President was specifically granted powers by the Constitution to treat with the Indians but it was the Supreme Court that often presided over controversies resulting from the execution of these treaties. Today the roles of the governing bodies are much more clearly defined. Also ever since the doctrine of self-determination came along the President has taken a stand offish position in regards to Indian affairs. However, the legal potential still remains for the President to have a massive impact on modern day Indian affairs.
The Supreme Court took on the burden of solving the moral burdens faced by various Indian issues. They were tasked with not only making case law and enforcing the Constitution but also with seeking justice in their decisions. Consistent with this mission of seeking fairness the court often considered what the Indians went through when negotiating treaties such as language barriers, negotiating experience, and unfamiliarity with white culture. These considerations are, more than anything else, the defining difference between the court’s deliberations and those of the other branches of the US government.
The views and opinions expressed in this page are
strictly those of the page author.
The contents of this page have not
been reviewed
or approved by the
University
of Minnesota
Date created: January 10, 2000
Last modified:
April, 2008
Copyright © 2008, George
R. Spangler