An isolated royal confirmation cannot validate Indian titles generally against the Crown.

Evidence

This charter and this letter certainly sanction a previous unauthorized purchase from Indians under the circumstances attending that particular purchase, but are far from supporting the general proposition, that a title acquired from the Indians would be valid against a title acquired from the Crown, or without the confirmation of the Crown. — Supreme Court of the United States (Marshall Court, 1823), Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh,…, 310

Categorization

• QUESTION: Northern question: does this logic presuppose that the Crown ‘owned’ land it never actually possessed? Where does that presumed original Crown title come from?
• XREF: The circularity here — the Crown’s title is asserted by the charter itself — reverberates with the polyad’s listening/interpretation thread about how legal fictions get built and sustained. — connects to: Royal charters expressly conveying soil prove the Crown claimed land rights over Indian territory. — Supreme Court of the United States (Marshall Court, 1823), Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh,…, 197

Related

• Royal charters expressly conveying soil prove the Crown claimed land rights over Indian territory. (similarity 0.85)
• US courts resolved frontier land disputes by denying Indian transferable title (similarity 0.79)