archive-org.com » ORG » D » DOCTRINEOFDISCOVERY.ORG

Total: 62

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Untitled Document
    lessors of the plaintiff now are and always have been citizens of the same State that the defendant William M Intosh now is and at and before the time of bringing this action was a citizen of the State of Illinois and that the matter in dispute in this action is of the value of 2000 dollars current money of the United States and upwards 24th And that neither William Murray nor any other of the grantees under the deed of July the 5th 1773 nor Louis Viviat nor any other of the 562 grantees under the deed of October the 8th 1775 nor any person for them or any of them ever obtained or had the actual possession under and by virtue of those deeds or either of them of any part of the lands in them or either of them described and purporting to be granted but were prevented by the war of the American revolution which soon after commenced and by the disputes and troubles which preceded it from obtaining such possession and that since the termination of the war and before it they have repeatedly and at various times from the year 1781 till the year 1816 petitioned the Congress of the United States to acknowledge and confirm their title to those lands under the purchases and deeds in question but without success Judgment being given for the defendant on the case stated the plaintiffs brought this writ of error 562 The cause was argued by Mr Harper and Mr Webster for the plaintiffs and by Mr Winder and Mr Murray for the defendants But as the arguments are so fully stated in the opinion of the Court it is deemed unnecessary to give any thing more than the following summary On the part of the plaintiffs it was contended 1 That upon the facts stated in the case the Piankeshaw Indians were the owners of the lands in dispute at the time of executing the deed of October 10th 1775 and had power to sell But as the United States had purchased the same lands of the same Indians both parties claim from the same source It would seem therefore to be unnecessary and merely speculative to discuss 563 the question respecting the sort of title or ownership which may be thought to belong to savage tribes in the lands on which they live Probably however their title by occupancy is to be respected as much as that of an individual obtained by the same right in a civilized state The circumstance that the members of the society held in common did not affect the strength of their title by occupancy Footnote In the memorial or manifesto of the British government in 1755 a right of soil in the Indians is admitted It is also admitted in the treaties of Utrecht and Aix la Chapelle The same opinion has been expressed by this Court Footnote and by the Supreme Court of New York Footnote In short all or nearly all the lands in the United States is holden under purchases from the Indian nations and the only question in this case must be whether it be competent to individuals to make such purchases or whether that be the exclusive prerogative of government 2 That the British king s proclamation of October 7th 1763 could not affect this right of the Indians to sell because they were not British subjects nor in any manner bound by the authority of the British government legislative or executive And because even admitting them to be British subjects absolutely or sub modo they were still proprietors of the soil and could not be devested of their rights of property or any of its 564 incidents by a mere act of the executive government such as this proclamation 3 That the proclamation of 1763 could not restrain the purchasers under these deeds from purchasing because the lands lay within the limits of the colony of Virginia of which or of some other British colony the purchasers all being British subjects were inhabitants And because the king had not within the limits of that colonial government or any other any power of prerogative legislation which is confined to countries newly conquered and remaining in the military possession of the monarch as supreme chief of the military forces of the nation The present claim has long been known to the government of the United States and is mentioned in the Collection of Land Laws published under public authority The compiler of those laws supposes this title void by virtue of the proclamation of 1763 But we have the positive authority of a solemn determination of the Court of King s Bench on this very proclamation in the celebrated Grenada case for asserting that it could have no such effect Footnote This country being a new conquest and a military possession the crown might exercise legislative powers until a local legislature was established But the establishment of a government establishes a system of laws and excludes the power of legislating by proclamation The proclamation could not have the force of law within the chartered limits of Virginia A proclamation 565 that no person should purchase land in England or Canada would be clearly void 4 That the act of Assembly of Virginia passed in May 1779 Footnote cannot affect the right of the plaintiffs and others claiming under these deeds because on general principles and by the constitution of Virginia the legislature was not competent to take away private vested rights or appropriate private property to public use under the circumstances of this case And because the act is not 566 contained in the revisal of 1794 and must therefore be considered as repealed and the repeal reinstates all rights that might have been affected by the act although the territory in which the lands in question lie was ceded to the United States before the repeal The act of 1779 was passed after the sales were made and it cannot affect titles previously obtained At the time of the purchases there was no law of Virginia rendering such purchases void If therefore the purchases were not affected by the proclamation of 1763 nor by the act of 1779 the question of their validity comes to the general inquiry whether individuals in Virginia at the time of this purchase could legally obtain Indian titles In New England titles have certainly been obtained in this mode But whatever may be said on the more general question and in reference to other colonies or States the fact being that in Virginia there was no statute existing at the time against such purchases mere general considerations would not apply It may be true that in almost all the colonies individual purchases from the Indians were illegal but they were rendered so by express provisions of the local law In Virginia also it may be true that such purchases have generally been prohibited but at the time the purchases now in question were made there was no prohibitory law in existence The old colonial laws on the subject had all been repealed The act of 1779 was a private act so far as respects this case It is the same as if it had enacted that these particular deeds were void Such acts 567 bind only those who are parties to them who submit their case to the Legislature On the part of the defendants it was insisted that the uniform understanding and practice of European nations and the settled law as laid down by the tribunals of civilized states denied the right of the Indians to be considered as independent communities having a permanent property in the soil capable of alienation to private individuals They remain in a state of nature and have never been admitted into the general society of nations Footnote All the treaties and negotiations between the civilized powers of Europe and of this continent from the treaty of Utrecht in 1713 to that of Ghent in 1814 have uniformly disregarded their supposed right to the territory included within the jurisdictional limits of those powers Footnote Not only has the practice of all civilized nations been in conformity with this doctrine but the whole theory of their titles to lands in America rests upon the hypothesis that the Indians had no right of soil as sovereign independent states Discovery is the foundation of title in European nations and this overlooks all proprietary rights in the natives Footnote The sovereignty and 568 eminent domain thus acquired necessarily precludes the idea of any other sovereignty existing within the same limits The subjects of the discovering nation must necessarily be bound by the declared sense of their own government as to the extent of this sovereignty and the domain acquired with it Even if it should be admitted that the Indians were originally an independent people they have ceased to be so A nation that has passed under the dominion of another is no longer a sovereign state Footnote The same treaties and negotiations before referred to show their dependent condition Or if it be admitted that they are now independent and foreign states the title of the plaintiffs would still be invalid as grantees from the Indians they must take according to their laws of property and as Indian subjects The law of every dominion affects all persons and property situate within it Footnote and the Indians never had any idea of individual property in lands It cannot be said that the lands conveyed were disjoined from their dominion because the grantees could not take the sovereignty and eminent domain to themselves Such then being the nature of the Indian title to lands the extent of their right of alienation must depend upon the laws of the dominion under which they live They are subject to the sovereignty of the United States The subjection proceeds from their residence within our territory 569 and jurisdiction It is unnecessary to show that they are not citizens in the ordinary sense of that term since they are destitute of the most essential rights which belong to that character They are of that class who are said by jurists not to be citizens but perpetual inhabitants with diminutive rights Footnote The statutes of Virginia and of all the other colonies and of the United States treat them as an inferior race of people without the privileges of citizens and under the perpetual protection and pupilage of the government The act of Virginia of 1662 forbade purchases from the Indians and it does not appear that it was ever repealed The act of 1779 is rather to be regarded as a declaratory act founded upon what had always been regarded as the settled law These statutes seem to define sufficiently the nature of the Indian title to lands a mere right of usufruct and habitation without power of alienation By the law of nature they had not acquired a fixed property capable of being transferred The measure of property acquired by occupancy is determined according to the law of nature by the extent of men s wants and their capacity of using it to supply them Footnote It is a violation of the rights of others to exclude them from the use of what we do not want and they have an occasion for Upon this principle the North American Indians could have acquired no proprietary interest in the vast tracts 570 of territory which they wandered over and their right to the lands on which they hunted could not be considered as superior to that which is acquired to the sea by fishing in it The use in the one case as well as the other is not exclusive Footnote According to every theory of property the Indians had no individual rights to land nor had they any collectively or in their national capacity for the lands occupied by each tribe were not used by them in such a manner as to prevent their being appropriated by a people of cultivators All the proprietary rights of civilized nations on this continent are founded on this principle The right derived from discovery and conquest can rest on no other basis and all existing titles depend on the fundamental title of the crown by discovery The title of the crown as representing the nation passed to the colonists by charters which were absolute grants of the soil and it was a first principle in colonial law that all titles must be derived from the crown It is true that in some cases purchases were made by the colonies from the Indians but this was merely a measure of policy to prevent hostilities and William Penn s purchase which was the most remarkable transaction of this kind was not deemed to add to the strength of his title Footnote In most of the colonies the 571 doctrine was received that all titles ot land must be derived exclusively from the crown upon the principle that the settlers carried with them not only all the rights but all the duties of Englishmen and particularly the laws of property so far as they are suitable to their new condition Footnote In New England alone some lands have been held under Indian deeds But this was an anomaly arising from peculiar local and political causes Footnote As to the effect of the proclamation of 1763 if the Indians are to be regarded as independent sovereign states then by the treaty of peace they became subject to the prerogative legislation of the crown as a conquered people in a territory acquired jure belli and ceded at the peace Footnote If on the contrary this country be regarded as a royal colony then the crown had a direct power of legislation or at least the power of prescribing the limits within which grants of land and settlements should be made within the colony The same practice always prevailed under the proprietary governments and has been followed by the government of the United States March 10th Mr Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court The plaintiffs in this cause claim the land in their declaration mentioned under two grants purporting to be made the first in 1773 and the last in 1775 by the chiefs of certain 572 Indian tribes constituting the Illinois and the Piankeshaw nations and the question is whether this title can be recognised in the Courts of the United States The facts as stated in the case agreed show the authority of the chiefs who executed this conveyance so far as it could be given by their own people and likewise show that the particular tribes for whom these chiefs acted were in rightful possession of the land they sold The inquiry therefore is in a great measure confined to the power of Indians to give and of private individuals to receive a title which can be sustained in the Courts of this country As the right of society to prescribe those rules by which property may be acquired and preserved is not and cannot be drawn into question as the title to lands especially is and must be admitted to depend entirely on the law of the nation in which they lie it will be necessary in pursuing this inquiry to examine not singly those principles of abstract justice which the Creator of all things has impressed on the mind of his creature man and which are admitted to regulate in a great degree the rights of civilized nations whose perfect independence is acknowledged but those principles also which our own government has adopted in the particular case and given us as the rule for our decision On the discovery of this immense continent the great nations of Europe were eager to appropriate to themselves so much of it as they could respectively acquire Its vast extent offered an 573 ample field to the ambition and enterprise of all and the character and religion of its inhabitants afforded an apology for considering them as a people over whom the superior genius of Europe might claim an ascendency The potentates of the old world found no difficulty in convincing themselves that they made ample compensation to the inhabitants of the new by bestowing on them civilization and Christianity in exchange for unlimited independence But as they were all in pursuit of nearly the same object it was necessary in order to avoid conflicting settlements and consequent war with each other to establish a principle which all should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition which they all asserted should be regulated as between themselves This principle was that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects or by whose authority it was made against all other European governments which title might be consummated by possession The exclusion of all other Europeans necessarily gave to the nation making the discovery the sole right of acquiring the soil from the natives and establishing settlements upon it It was a right with which no Europeans could interfere It was a right which all asserted for themselves and to the assertion of which by others all assented Those relations which were to exist between the discoverer and the natives were to be regulated by themselves The rights thus acquired being exclusive no other power could interpose between them 574 In the establishment of these relations the rights of the original inhabitants were in no instance entirely disregarded but were necessarily to a considerable extent impaired They were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it and to use it according to their own discretion but their rights to complete sovereignty as independent nations were necessarily diminished and their power to dispose of the soil at their own will to whomsoever they pleased was denied by the original fundamental principle that discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it While the different nations of Europe respected the right of the natives as occupants they asserted the ultimate dominion to be in themselves and claimed and exercised as a consequence of this ultimate dominion a power to grant the soil while yet in possession of the natives These grants have been understood by all to convey a title to the grantees subject only to the Indian right of occupancy The history of America from its discovery to the present day proves we think the universal recognition of these principles Spain did not rest her title solely on the grant of the Pope Her discussions respecting boundary with France with Great Britain and with the United States all show that she placed in on the rights given by discovery Portugal sustained her claim to the Brazils by the same title France also founded her title to the vast territories she claimed in America on discovery However 575 conciliatory her conduct to the natives may have been she still asserted her right of dominion over a great extent of country not actually settled by Frenchmen and her exclusive right to acquire and dispose of the soil which remained in the occupation of Indians Her monarch claimed all Canada and Acadie as colonies of France at a time when the French population was very inconsiderable and the Indians occupied almost the whole country He also claimed Louisiana comprehending the immense territories watered by the Mississippi and the rivers which empty into it by the title of discovery The letters patent granted to the Sieur Demonts in 1603 constitute him Lieutenant General and the representative of the King in Acadie which is described as stretching from the 40th to the 46th degree of north latitude with authority to extend the power of the French over that country and its inhabitants to give laws to the people to treat with the natives and enforce the observance of treaties and to parcel out and give title to lands according to his own judgment The States of Holland also made acquisitions in America and sustained their right on the common principle adopted by all Europe They allege as we are told by Smith in his History of New York that Henry Hudson who sailed as they say under the orders of their East India Company discovered the country from the Delaware to the Hudson up which he sailed to the 43d degree of north latitude and this country they claimed under the title acquired by this voyage 576 Their first object was commercial as appears by a grant made to a company of merchants in 1614 but in 1621 the States General made as we are told by Mr Smith a grant of the country to the West India Company by the name of New Netherlands The claim of the Dutch was always contested by the English not because they questioned the title given by discovery but because they insisted on being themselves the rightful claimants under that title Their pretensions were finally decided by the sword No one of the powers of Europe gave its full assent to this principle more unequivocally than England The documents upon this subject are ample and complete So early as the year 1496 her monarch granted a commission to the Cabots to discover countries then unknown to Christian people and to take possession of them in the name of the king of England Two years afterwards Cabot proceeded on this voyage and discovered the continent of North America along which he sailed as far south as Virginia To this discovery the English trace their title In this first effort made by the English government to acquire territory on this continent we perceive a complete recognition of the principle which has been mentioned The right of discovery given by this commission is confined to countries then unknown to all Christian people and of these countries Cabot was empowered to take possession in the name of the king of England Thus asserting a right to take possession 577 notwithstanding the occupancy of the natives who were heathens and at the same time admitting the prior title of any Christian people who may have made a previous discovery The same principle continued to be recognised The charter granted to Sir Humphrey Gilbert in 1578 authorizes him to discover and take possession of such remote heathen and barbarous lands as were not actually possessed by any Christian prince or people This charter was afterwards renewed to Sir Walter Raleigh in nearly the same terms By the charter of 1606 under which the first permanent English settlement on this continent was made James I granted to Sir Thomas Gates and others those territories in America lying on the seacoast between the 34th and 45th degrees of north latitude and which either belonged to that monarch or were not then possessed by any other Christian prince or people The grantees were divided into two companies at their own request The first or southern colony was directed to settle between the 34th and 41st degrees of north latitude and the second or northern colony between the 38th and 45th degrees In 1609 after some expensive and not very successful attempts at settlement had been made a new and more enlarged charter was givne by the crown to the first colony in which the king granted to the Treasurer and Company of Adventurers of the city of London for the first colony in Virginia in absolute property the lands extending along the seacoast four hundred miles and 578 into the land throughout from sea to sea This charter which is a part of the special verdict in this cause was annulled so far as respected the rights of the company by the judgment of the Court of King s Bench on a writ of quo warranto but the whole effect allowed to this judgment was to revest in the crown the powers of government and the title to the lands within its limits At the solicitation of those who held under the grant to the second or northern colony a new and more enlarged charter was granted to the Duke of Lenox and others in 1620 who were denominated the Plymouth Company conveying to them in absolute property all the lands between the 40th and 48th degrees of north latitude Under this patent New England has been in a great measure settled The company conveyed to Henry Rosewell and others in 1627 that territory which is now Massachusetts and in 1628 a charter of incorporation comprehending the powers of government was granted to the purchasers Great part of New England was granted by this company which at length divided their remaining lands among themselves and in 1635 surrendered their charter to the crown A patent was granted to Gorges for Maine which was allotted to him in the division of property All the grants made by the Plymouth Company so far as we can learn have been respected In pursuance of the same principle the king in 1664 granted to the Duke of York the country of New England as far south as the Delaware 579 bay His royal highness transferred New Jersey to Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret In 1663 the crown granted to Lord Clarendon and others the country lying between the 36th degree of north latitude and the river St Mathes and in 1666 the proprietors obtained from the crown a new charter granting to them that province in the king s dominions in North America which lies from 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude to the 29th degree and from the Atlantic ocean to the South sea Thus has our whole country been granted by the crown while in the occupation of the Indians These grants purport to convey the soil as well as the right of dominion to the grantees In those governments which were denominated royal where the right to the soil was not vested in individuals but remained in the crown or was vested in the colonial government the king claimed and exercised the right of granting lands and of dismembering the government at his will The grants made out of the two original colonies after the resumption of their charters by the crown are examples of this The governments of New England New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Maryland and a part of Carolina were thus created In all of them the soil at the time the grants were made was occupied by the Indians Yet almost every title within those governments is dependent on these grants In some instances the soil was conveyed by the crown unaccompanied by the powers of government as in the case of the northern neck of Virginia It has never 580 been objected to this or to any other similar grant that the title as well as possession was in the Indians when it was made and that it passed nothing on that account These various patents cannot be considered as nullities nor can they be limited to a mere grant of the powers of government A charter intended to convey political power only would never contain words expressly granting the land the soil and the waters Some of them purport to convey the soil alone and in those cases in which the powers of government as well as the soil are conveyed to individuals the crown has always acknowledged itself to be bound by the grant Though the power to dismember regal governments was asserted and exercised the power to dismember proprietary governments was not claimed and in some instances even after the powers of government were revested in the crown the title of the proprietors to the soil was respected Charles II was extremely anxious to acquire the property of Maine but the grantees sold it to Massachusetts and he did not venture to contest the right of that colony to the soil The Carolinas were originally proprietary governments In 1721 a revolution was effected by the people who shook off their obedience to the proprietors and declared their dependence immediately on the crown The king however purchased the title of those who were disposed to sell One of them Lord Carteret surrendered his interest in the government but retained his title to the soil That 581 title was respected till the revolution when it was forfeited by the laws of war Further proofs of the extent to which this principle has been recognised will be found in the history of the wars negotiations and treaties which the different nations claiming territory in America have carried on and held with each other The contests between the cabinets of Versailles and Madrid respecting the territory on the northern coast of the gulf of Mexico were fierce and bloody and continued until the establishment of a Bourbon on the throne of Spain produced such amicable dispositions in the two crowns as to suspend or terminate them Between France and Great Britain whose discoveries as well as settlements were nearly contemporaneous contests for the country actually covered by the Indians began as soon as their settlements approached each other and were continued until finally settled in the year 1763 by the treaty of Paris Each nation had granted and partially settled the country denominated by the French Acadie and by the English Nova Scotia By the 12th article of the treaty of Utrecht made in 1703 his most Christian Majesty ceded to the Queen of Great Britain all Nova Scotia or Acadie with its ancient boundaries A great part of the ceded territory was in the possession of the Indians and the extent of the cession could not be adjusted by the commissioners to whom it was to be referred The treaty of Aix la Chapelle which was made 582 on the principle of the status ante bellum did not remove this subject of controversy Commissioners for its adjustment were appointed whose very able and elaborate though unsuccessful arguments in favour of the title of their respective sovereigns show how entirely each relied on the title given by discovery to lands remaining in the possession of Indians After the termination of this fruitless discussion the subject was transferred to Europe and taken up by the cabinets of Versailles and London This controversy embraced not only the boundaries of New England Nova Scotia and that part of Canada which adjoined those colonies but embraced our whole western country also France contended not only that the St Lawrence was to be considered as the centre of Canada but that the Ohio was within that colony She founded this claim on discovery and on having used that river for the transportation of troops in a war with some southern Indians This river was comprehended in the chartered limits of Virginia but though the right of England to a reasonable extent of country in virtue of her discovery of the seacoast and of the settlements she made on it was not to be questioned her claim of all the lands to the Pacific ocean because she had discovered the country washed by the Atlantic might without derogating from the principle recognised by all be deemed extravagant It interfered too with the claims of France founded on the same principle She therefore sought to strengthen her original title to 583 the lands in controversy by insisting that it had been acknowledged by France in the 15th article of the treaty of Utrecht The dispute respecting the construction of that article has no tendency to impair the principle that discovery gave a title to lands still remaining in the possession of the Indians Whichever title prevailed it was still a title to lands occupied by the Indians whose right of occupancy neither controverted and neither had then extinguished These conflicting claims produced a long and bloody war which was terminated by the conquest of the whole country east of the Mississippi In the treaty of 1763 France ceded and guarantied to Great Britain all Nova Scotia or Acadie and Canada with their dependencies and it was agreed that the boundaries between the territories of the two nations in America should be irrevocably fixed by a line drawn from the source of the Mississippi through the middle of that river and the lakes Maurepas and Ponchartrain to the sea This treaty expressly cedes and has always been understood to cede the whole country on the English side of the dividing line between the two nations although a great and valuable part of it was occupied by the Indians Great Britain on her part surrendered to France all her pretensions to the country west of the Mississippi It has never been supposed that she surrendered nothing although she was not in actual possession of a foot of land She surrendered all right to acquired the country and any after attempt to purchase it from the Indians would have been considered 584 and treated as an invasion of the territories of France By the 20th article of the same treaty Spain ceded Florida with its dependencies and all the country she claimed east or southeast of the Mississippi to Great Britain Great part of this territory also was in possession of the Indians By a secret treaty which was executed about the same time France ceded Louisiana to Spain and Spain has since retroceded the same country to France At the time both of its cession and retrocession it was occupied chiefly by the Indians Thus all the nations of Europe who have acquired territory on this continent have asserted in themselves and have recognised in others the exclusive right of the discoverer to appropriate the lands occupied by the Indians Have the American States rejected or adopted this principle By the treaty which concluded the war of our revolution Great Britain relinquished all claim not only to the government but to the propriety and territorial rights of the United States whose boundaries were fixed in the second article By this treaty the powers of government and the right to soil which had previously been in Great Britain passed definitively to these States We had before taken possession of them by declaring independence but neither the declaration of independence nor the treaty confirming it could give us more than that which we before possessed or to which Great Britain was before entitled It 585 has never been doubted that either the United States or the several States had a clear title to all the lands within the boundary lines described in the treaty subject only to the Indian right of occupancy and that the exclusive power to extinguish that right was vested in that government which might constitutionally exercise it Virginia particularly within whose chartered limits the land in controversy lay passed an act in the year 1779 declaring her exclusive right of pre emption from the Indians of all the lands within the limits of her own chartered territory and that no person or persons whatsoever have or ever had a right to purchase any lands within the same from any Indian nation except only persons duly authorized to make such purchase formerly for the use and benefit of the colony and lately for the Commonwealth The act then proceeds to annul all deeds made by Indians to individuals for the private use of the purchasers Without ascribing to this act the power of annulling vested rights or admitting it to countervail the testimony furnished by the marginal note opposite to the title of the law forbidding purchases from the Indians in the revisals of the Virginia statutes stating that law to be repealed it may safely be considered as an unequivocal affirmance on the part of Virginia of the broad principle which had always been maintained that the exclusive right to purchase

    Original URL path: http://www.doctrineofdiscovery.org/johnvmac.htm (2016-02-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Untitled Document
    to themselves we have never taken any part nor does it comport with our policy to do so It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defence With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments And to the defence of our own which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity this whole nation is devoted We owe it therefore to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it and whose independence we have on great consideration and on just principles acknowledged we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them or controlling in any other manner their destiny by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States In the war between those new governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition and to this we have adhered and shall continue to adhere provided no change shall

    Original URL path: http://www.doctrineofdiscovery.org/monroe%20doctrine.htm (2016-02-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Untitled Document
    certain essential points which must never be forgotten as regards the Monroe Doctrine In the first place we must as a nation make it evident that we do not intend to treat it in any shape or way as an excuse for aggrandizement on our part at the expense of the republics to the south We must recognize the fact that in some South American countries there has been much suspicion lest we should interpret the Monroe Doctrine as in some way inimical to their interests and we must try to convince all the other nations of this continent once and for all that no just and orderly government has anything to fear from us There are certain republics to the south of us which have already reached such a point of stability order and prosperity that they themselves though as yet hardly consciously are among the guarantors of this doctrine These republics we now meet not only on a basis of entire equality but in a spirit of frank and respectful friendship which we hope is mutual If all of the republics to the south of us will only grow as those to which I allude have already grown

    Original URL path: http://www.doctrineofdiscovery.org/roosevelt%20corollary.htm (2016-02-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Untitled Document
    forum s convening in 2010 The Episcopalian Church s resolution will no doubt factor into that study Newcomb said The Doctrine of Discovery was a principle of international law developed in a series of 15th century papal bulls and 16th century charters by European monarchs It was essentially a racist philosophy that gave white Christian Europeans the green light to go forth and claim the lands and resources of non Christian peoples and kill or enslave them if other Christian Europeans had not already done so The doctrine institutionalized the competition between European countries in their ever expanding quest for colonies resources and markets and sanctioned the genocide of indigenous people in the New World The resolution renounces the doctrine as fundamentally opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and our understanding of the inherent rights that individuals and peoples have received from God and promises to share the document with its churches governments within its boundaries and the U N It resolves to eliminate the doctrine within the church s contemporary politics programs and structures and urges the U S government to do the same It asks Queen Elizabeth to publicly repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery and encourages all Episcopal churches to support indigenous peoples in their ongoing efforts for their inherent sovereignty and fundamental human rights as peoples to be respected Johnson v M Intosh an 1823 U S Supreme Court case held that because of the Doctrine of Discovery American Indians have a mere right of occupancy to their lands The ruling is foundational to federal Indian law Dieffenbacher Krall the executive director of the Maine Indian Tribal State Commission and originator of the resolution movement said the ultimate goal is to overturn Johnson v M Intosh and dismantle Congress claim to plenary power over Indian nations This is illegitimate this is immoral this is evil U S law shouldn t be based on this I want to see an all out effort to overturn Johnson v M Intosh just as the NAACP legal defense fund and many civil rights activists worked strategically to overturn Plessy v Ferguson he said referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that upheld a separate but equal decision by a lower court that allowed Louisiana to operate separate railroad cars for African Americans The high court decision provided cover for southern states to impose racist Jim Crow laws for more than five decades until segregation was tossed out in 1954 in Brown v Board of Education A longtime social justice activist Dieffenbacher Krall said his growing awareness and understanding of the doctrine s history made action irresistible It s not like I had a St Paul on the road to Damascus moment but sometime in the winter spring or summer of 2006 I really became aware of the Doctrine of Discovery in connection to Congress claim of plenary power over American Indian nations So where s the social justice behind Congress saying We ll just do whatever we want with the

    Original URL path: http://www.doctrineofdiscovery.org/indian%20ctry%20episcopal%20repudiates.htm (2016-02-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Untitled Document
    the education department of the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Indian Country Today columnist and author of Pagans in the Promised Land Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery She also has had lengthy conversations with her longtime friends Wayne Newell a Passamaquoddy elder and teacher and John Dieffenbacker Krall the executive director of the Maine Indian Tribal State Commission It was Dieffenbacker Krall who started what has become a movement to have predominantly non Catholic Christian churches renounce the Doctrine of Discovery He spearheaded the effort that led Maine s Episcopal Church to pass a resolution in 2007 calling on Queen Elizabeth and the Archbishop of Canterbury to rescind the 1496 charter given to John Cabot and his sons to go forth and claim possession of all the lands in the New World that weren t already claimed by Spain and Portugal That action led to a similar resolution in New York state and ultimately to the national resolution last summer A movement to persuade the Catholic Church to repeal the papal bulls has been in the works for years Oren Lyons Faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation Haudenosaunee co signed a letter in 2005 urging Pope Benedict XVI to revoke the papal bulls There has been no response from the Vatican Koopman was surprised to receive a phone call from Lyons whom she has never met in early December before he Newcomb and others in the indigenous community were leaving for the Parliament of the World s Religions meeting in Melbourne Australia Dec 3 9 We had a long conversation and I sent him a copy of the materials and meanwhile people are taking the Minute to other monthly meetings and we re hoping it will get to the Yearly Meetings in the different areas Koopman said The circle is definitely widening Koopman agreed A lot of people are coming to this light I think something s happening and I feel it s going to be good if we let these moments be beginnings and not endings You can t say I m sorry now it s over It has to be a beginning I know this now I embrace this now and I will use this to move forward in better ways Haudenosaunee delegation advocates Doctrine disavowal A delegation of Haudenosaunee people at the Parliament of World Religions in Melbourne Australia plans to persuade the meeting to pass a resolution repudiating the Christian Doctrine of Discovery and they have received help from Maine The Rev Dr Richard Tardiff co chairman of the Committee on Indian Relationships of the Episcopal Diocese of Maine wrote to Oren Lyons Faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation Nov 30 offering the committee s support for the delegation s efforts The Episcopal Church passed a resolution called Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery at the church s 76th General Convention July 8 17 in Anaheim But the movement was spearheaded by John Dieffenbacker Krall a member of the Committee headed by Tardiff and the executive director

    Original URL path: http://www.doctrineofdiscovery.org/quaker%20no%201.htm (2016-02-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Untitled Document
    publicly acknowledge and repudiate the papal decrees that legitimized the original activities that have evolved into the dehumanizing Doctrine of Christian Discovery and dominion in laws and policies Overall the trip was very successful in bringing forward the idea of rescinding the papal bulls said Jake Swamp Wolf Clan sub chief of the Kahniakehaka Mohawk Nation author and founder of the Tree of Peace Society an international organization promoting peace and environmental conservation I think that s the most important thing in our time is to finally attack the roots of the oppression experienced by indigenous peoples worldwide The papal bulls were 15th century documents issued by the popes of the Roman Catholic Church giving permission to the kings of Spain and Portugal to conquer and claim undiscovered lands enslave or skill their non Christian populations and expropriate their possessions and resources The English monarchy followed suit with charters to explorers such as John Cabot to colonize the New World The Doctrine of Discovery which these documents formulated was a principle of international law a kind of early trade agreement that whichever Christian European country discovered lands populated by non Christians could claim those lands and resources The Doctrine concerns indigenous people all over the world because it continues to negatively affect people everywhere said Philip Arnold associate professor of indigenous religions in the Department of Religion at Syracuse University and a member of the Haudenosaunee delegation Arnold who is married to a Mohawk woman participated on a panel with some members of the Haudenosaunee delegation where he discussed how the Doctrine even affects his own family The Doctrine justified the establishment of the notorious boarding schools in the 19th and 20th centuries that aimed to civilize Indian children by removing them from their families and stripping them of their

    Original URL path: http://www.doctrineofdiscovery.org/indigenous%20delegates.htm (2016-02-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Untitled Document
    songlines reindeer and caribou ceremonies and dreamtime our ritual performances and practices games sports language mythologies names lands sea water every life forms and all documented forms and aspects of culture including burial and sacred sites human genetic materials ancestral remains so often stolen and our artifacts Unfortunately certain doctrines have been threatening to the survival of our cultures our languages and our peoples and devastating to our ways of life These are found in particular colonizing documents such as the Inter Caetera papal bull of 1493 which called for the subjugation of non Christian nations and peoples and the propagation of the Christian empire This is the root of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery that is still interwoven into laws and policies today that must be changed The principles of subjugation contained in this and other such documents and in the religious texts and documents of other religions have been and continue to be destructive to our ways of life religions cultures and the survival of our Indigenous nations and peoples This oppressive tradition is what led to the boarding schools the residential schools and the Stolen Generation resulting in the trauma of Indigenous peoples being cut off from their languages and cultures resulting in language death and loss of family integrity from the actions of churches and governments We call on those churches and governments to put as much time effort energy and money into assisting with the revitalization of our languages and cultures as they put into attempting to destroy them The doctrines of colonization and dominion have laid the groundwork for contemporary problems of racism and dispossession These problems include the industrial processes of resource exploitation and extraction by governments and corporations that has consistently meant the use of imposed laws to force the removal of Indigenous peoples from our traditional territories and to desecrate and destroy our sacred sites and places The result is a great depletion of biodiversity and the loss of our traditional ways of life as well as the depletion and contamination of the waters of Mother Earth from mining and colonization Such policies and practices do not take into account that water is the first law of life and a gift from the Creator for all beings Clean healthy safe and free water is necessary for the continuity and well being of all living things The commercialization and poisoning of water is a crime against life The negative ethics of contemporary society discovery conquest dominion exploitation extraction and industrialization have brought us to today s crisis of global warming Climate change is now our most urgent issue and affecting the lives of indigenous peoples at an alarming rate Many of our people s lives are in crisis due to the rapid global warming The ice melt in the north and rapid sea rise continue to accelerate and the time for action is brief The Earth s resources are finite and the present global consumption levels are unsustainable and continue to affect

    Original URL path: http://www.doctrineofdiscovery.org/indigenous%20statement.htm (2016-02-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Untitled Document
    Previous Next Joe Heath

    Original URL path: http://www.doctrineofdiscovery.org/picture%201.htm (2016-02-11)
    Open archived version from archive