Trump v. Barbara · ¶23

When the newly independent Americans confronted a novel situation, unknown to England—that of the quasi- sovereign Indian tribes—they turned to the principles of the common law. Did the tribes truly govern their people? Or were their people wholly subsumed within the United States? Echoing Coke and Blackstone, Chancellor Kent answered with the common law. “We have purchased the greater part of their lands, destroyed their hunting grounds, . . . and gradually abridged their native independence,” Kent acknowledged. Goodell v. Jackson ex dem. Smith, 20 Johns. 693, 711 (N. Y. Ct. Corr. Errors 1823). Even so, he reasoned, the “United States ha[s] never dealt with those people, within our national limits, as if they were extinguished sovereignties.” Id., at 714. They were instead “dependent nations” that maintained “dominion[s]” of their own. Id., at 712, 714. Indians born under those…

slip opinion, revised 7/01/26
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.