Indian land was held in common by each tribe rather than in severalty.

Evidence

That from time immemorial and always up to the present time, all the Indian tribes or nations of North America, and especially the Illinois and Piankeshaws and other tribes holding, possessing, and inhabiting the said countries north and northeast of the Ohio east of the Mississippi and west of the Great Miami held their respective lands and territories each in common, the individuals of each tribe or nation holding the lands and territories of such tribe in common with each other, and there being among them no separate property in the soil, and that their sole method of selling, granting, and conveying their lands, whether to governments or individuals, always has been from time immemorial and now is for certain chiefs of the tribe selling to represent the whole tribe in every part of the transaction, to make the contract, and execute the deed, on behalf of the whole tribe, to receive for it the consideration, whether in money or commodities, or both, and finally to divide such consideration among the individuals of the tribe, and that the authority of the chiefs so acting for the whole tribe is attested by the presence and assent of the individuals composing the tribe, or some of them, and by the receipt by the individuals composing the tribe of their respective shares of the price, and in no other manner. — Supreme Court of the United States (Marshall Court, 1823), Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh,…, 119

Categorization

• DEFINE: Establishes the factual predicate the Johnson v. McIntosh court accepted: tribal common ownership and chief-mediated collective conveyance — the very picture against which the court will define European ‘right of soil.’
• XREF: Connects to the polyad’s land/place thread — this common-holding description becomes the foil for the discovery doctrine the opinion will announce. Ties to Eco-Justice’s settler-colonialism theme via Whyte. — connects to: Natives were rightful occupants but lacked power to sell their land. — Supreme Court of the United States (Marshall Court, 1823), Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh,…, 169; Natural law theory initially recognized Indians as holding sovereign title to their lands; Abuse of land stems from regarding it as owned commodity rather than community — Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac: With Other…, 10

Related

• Natives were rightful occupants but lacked power to sell their land. (similarity 0.85)
• The Supreme Court gave Indians only occupancy rights, not land title. (similarity 0.80)
• Courts voided private purchases of Indian land as unmarketable title. (similarity 0.79)
• Discovery vested absolute title in Europeans subject only to Indian occupancy (similarity 0.79)
• Discovery of land granted title against rival Europeans but not against natives. (similarity 0.78)
• Ultimate dominion let European governments grant Indian-occupied land to settlers. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Natural law theory initially recognized Indians as holding sovereign title to their lands #expands (0.85)
• Abuse of land stems from regarding it as owned commodity rather than community #qualifies (0.75) — Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, 10