Return of John Marshall

The court case of Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. William M’intosh, which was touched on by the previous post, goes beyond its original scope.  At first, the case’s purpose was simply to settle a land dispute.  However, as the case reached the Supreme Court, it ended up becoming a model for the future.  Chief Justice John Marshall describes the Indians as “fierce savages, whose occupation was war.”  He goes on to say that this makes them impossible to govern.  Since they are impossible to govern, according to Marshall, the United States is not actually conquering the Indians.  Instead, they are merely being relieved of their land.  Marshall justifies this by saying that the Indians’ uncivilized nature means that leaving the land in their control is detrimental to the advancement of humanity.  Within a couple paragraphs of the ruling, Marshall has effectively removed the label of “conquest” from the United States’ interactions with the native peoples.  The last post described the implications of using words like “institution” as euphemisms for slavery, and how these labels can fixate entire societies and prevent them from taking action to solve the problem(s) at hand.  Here, there is a converse effect of removing the label.  If pushing native peoples off their land is not considered conquest, which certainly carries with it a negative connotation, it becomes much easier for said actions to increase.  There is no rule or law which prevents them from taking over the native peoples of America.  Without a rule, it can become quite difficult to control peoples’ actions, and, as Marshall says: “Every rule which can be suggested will be found to be attended with great difficulty.”