Natives were rightful occupants but lacked power to sell their land.

Evidence

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. — Supreme Court of the United States (Marshall Court, 1823), Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh,…, 169

Categorization

• DEFINE: The distinction between ‘right of occupancy’ and full fee-simple title — the very origin of the aboriginal occupancy doctrine.
• ADDENDUM: This is the precise mechanism by which the settler-colonial land regime in Reading the Landscape and the Eco-Justice Whyte materials took legal form: title is split between occupant and ultimate owner.
• XREF: connects to: Indian land was held in common by each tribe rather than in severalty. — Supreme Court of the United States (Marshall Court, 1823), Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh,…, 119; Discovery of land granted title against rival Europeans but not against natives. — Supreme Court of the United States (Marshall Court, 1823), Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh,…, 166; Ultimate dominion let European governments grant Indian-occupied land to settlers. — Supreme Court of the United States (Marshall Court, 1823), Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh,…, 167 (+6 more)

Related

• Indian land was held in common by each tribe rather than in severalty. (similarity 0.85)
• The Supreme Court gave Indians only occupancy rights, not land title. (similarity 0.84)
• Ultimate dominion let European governments grant Indian-occupied land to settlers. (similarity 0.84)
• Settlers invoked Indian property rights only when convenient to their land claims (similarity 0.83)
• Discovery vested absolute title in Europeans subject only to Indian occupancy (similarity 0.82)
• Discovery of land granted title against rival Europeans but not against natives. (similarity 0.82)
• Courts voided private purchases of Indian land as unmarketable title. (similarity 0.82)
• The federal purchase monopoly suppresses Native American land prices. (similarity 0.81)
• Supreme Court of the United States (Marshall Court, 1823) — Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (similarity 0.78)
• The Constitution protected only individual property, not Indigenous common land (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• The Supreme Court denied American Indians the right to sell their land. #corroborates (0.90)
• Settlers invoked Indian property rights only when convenient to their land claims #qualifies (0.85) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 226
• Colonialists treated natives as obstructing objects lacking agency, not as agents #corroborates (0.80) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 388
• The Sioux never wanted compensation because the land was never for sale #contradicts (0.80) — Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the…, 522
• Settler nations were built on stolen land and enslaved people. #expands (0.75) — Naomi Klein, Doppelganger, 763
• Colonial settlement justified itself by declaring the land empty of legitimate people #corroborates (0.75) — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 727