![handle is hein.journals/jmlr53 and id is 1 raw text is:
THE CHEROKEE NATION, JOHN
MARSHALL, AND THE STADIAL THEORY
OF DEVELOPMENT
JAMES MULDOON*
I. IN TR O D U C T IO N ...............................................................1
II. STA D IA L TH E O R Y ............................................................3
III. JOHNSON V. M'INTOSH..................................................6
IV. CHEROKEE NATION v. GEORGIA...............................13
V. W ORCESTER v. GEORGIA.............................................15
VI. THE CIVILIZED AND THE UNCIVILIZED ..................23
VII. CHANCELLOR KENT.....................................................24
V III. JO SE PH STO RY ........................................................30
IX. CONCLUSION.................................................................32
I. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, some legal historians examining the European
conquest and acquisition of the Americas have argued that
European states claimed the right to seize the lands of the
indigenous populations and to govern the inhabitants on the
grounds that by not being Christians, such people did not have the
same right to possess property and self-govern that Christians
enjoyed. These historians called this the Doctrine of Discovery,
according to which:
[W]hen [a] European, Christian nation first discovered new lands the
discovering country automatically gained sovereign and property
rights in the lands of the non-Christian, non-European nation even
though, obviously, the natives already owned, occupied, and used
these lands.1
* James Muldoon, Professor of History (Emeritus) at Rutgers University is
an Invited Research Scholar at the John Carter Brown Library, and the author
of several books including Popes, Lawyers, and Infidels and Empire and Order:
The Concept of Empire, 800-1800 as well as articles on canon law and European
expansion.
1. ROBERT J. MILLER ET AL., DISCOVERING INDIGENOUS LANDS: THE
DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERY IN THE ENGLISH COLONIES 3 (2010) (quoting Robert J.
Miller, The Doctrine of Discovery in American Indian Law, 42 IDAHO L. REV. 1,
5 (2005) [hereinafter The Doctrine ofDiscovery]); Robert J. Miller, Lisa Le Sage,
& Sebasti6n L6pez Escarcena, The International Law of Discovery, Indigenous
Peoples, and Chile, 89 NEB. L. REV. 819, 820-83 (2010); Robert J. Miller, Brazil,
Indigenous Peoples, and the International Law of Discovery, 37 BROOK. J. INT'L
L. 1 (2011) [hereinafter International Law of Discovery]; ROBERT A. WILLIAMS,
JR., THE AMERICAN INDIAN IN WESTERN LEGAL THOUGHT: THE DISCOURSES OF
CONQUEST (1990); ANTHONY PAGDEN, LORDS OF ALL THE WORLD: IDEOLOGIES
OF EMPIRE IN SPAIN, BRITAIN AND FRANCE C.1500-C.1800 46-47 (1995); JILL
NORGREN, THE CHEROKEE CASES 56-57 (2004). Alexander VI did not, however,
make such a claim. James Muldoon, Papal Responsibility for the Infidel:
Another Look at Alexander VI's Inter caetera, 64 CATH. HIST. REV. 168, 168-84
(1978), reprinted in JAMES MULDOON, CANON LAW, THE EXPANSION OF EUROPE,
AND WORLD ORDER IV (1998).
1](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/jmlr53&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most