Royal charters expressly conveying soil prove the Crown claimed land rights over Indian territory.
Evidence
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. — Supreme Court of the United States (Marshall Court, 1823), Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh,…, 197
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: 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; Discovery vested absolute title in Europeans subject only to Indian occupancy — Supreme Court of the United States (Marshall Court, 1823), Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh,…, 259; Royal charters simultaneously granted both soil title and governmental power over the land. — Supreme Court of the United States (Marshall Court, 1823), Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh,…, 308 (+3 more)
Related
- Royal charters simultaneously granted both soil title and governmental power over the land. (similarity 0.88)
- An isolated royal confirmation cannot validate Indian titles generally against the Crown. (similarity 0.85)
- Ultimate dominion let European governments grant Indian-occupied land to settlers. (similarity 0.83)
Broader Connections
- British colonial administrators propagated the fiction of sovereign land ownership.
#corroborates(0.85) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 452 - An isolated royal confirmation cannot validate Indian titles generally against the Crown.
#complicates(0.75) — Supreme Court of the United States (Marshall Court, 1823), Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh,…, 310