POLS 410 Quiz 1

docx

School

Purdue Global University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

410

Subject

History

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ChefLlamaPerson400

Question 1( 10 pts) By holding treaties, accepting cessions, and establishing boundaries with them, the King of England waived all rights accruing by conquest or cession, and thus most solemnly acknowledged that the Indians had rights of property which they could cede or reserve. [ Choose ] Francisco de Vitoria Johnson v. McIntosh, 1823 Royal Proclamation of 1763 Preemptive doctrine of discovery Expansive Doctrine of Discovery Mitchel v. U.S., 1835 Tee-Hit-Ton v. U.S., 1955 Absolutist doctrine of discovery Northwest Ordinance of 1787 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831 Indigenous people possessed natural rights and that as free people they were the true owners of the land they inhabited; Indians owned their land and the Crown could not claim title through discovery. [ Choose ] Francisco de Vitoria Johnson v. McIntosh, 1823 Royal Proclamation of 1763 Preemptive doctrine of discovery Expansive Doctrine of Discovery Mitchel v. U.S., 1835 Tee-Hit-Ton v. U.S., 1955 Absolutist doctrine of discovery Northwest Ordinance of 1787 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831 It established a boundary line between British and Indian territories--a clear delineation of Indian ownership of Indian Country. Recalled settlers from west of the Appalachian Mountains. Temporarily forbade emigration. Authorized only licensed agents to trade with Indians. [ Choose ] Francisco de Vitoria Johnson v. McIntosh, 1823 Royal Proclamation of 1763 Preemptive doctrine of discovery Expansive Doctrine of Discovery Mitchel v. U.S., 1835 Tee-Hit-Ton v. U.S., 1955 Absolutist doctrine of discovery Northwest Ordinance of 1787 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831 It argues that Indian nations are like children or wards, and that they are incompetent to manage their own affairs; land management, consolidation, and sales are left to the federal "guardian." [ Choose ] Francisco de Vitoria Johnson v. McIntosh, 1823 Royal Proclamation of 1763 Preemptive doctrine of discovery Expansive Doctrine of Discovery Mitchel v. U.S., 1835 Tee-Hit-Ton v. U.S., 1955 Absolutist doctrine of discovery Northwest Ordinance of 1787 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831 This grants European nations an exclusive right to be the first purchaser of Indian land, should a tribe agree to sell any of its territory. [ Choose ] Francisco de Vitoria Johnson v. McIntosh, 1823 Royal Proclamation of 1763 Preemptive doctrine of discovery Expansive Doctrine of Discovery Mitchel v. U.S., 1835

Tee-Hit-Ton v. U.S., 1955 Absolutist doctrine of discovery Northwest Ordinance of 1787 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831 States that good faith, justice, and humanity--not military conquest--were the appropriate political and moral principles guiding the federal government's dealing with tribal nations. [ Choose ] Francisco de Vitoria Johnson v. McIntosh, 1823 Royal Proclamation of 1763 Preemptive doctrine of discovery Expansive Doctrine of Discovery Mitchel v. U.S., 1835 Tee-Hit-Ton v. U.S., 1955 Absolutist doctrine of discovery Northwest Ordinance of 1787 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831 Argues that tribes were the "rightful occupants of the soil," but that their legal claim to their lands was less than (secondary to) the claim of The United States. Indians could sell land only to the U.S. It reduced Indian people from landowners to occupants only. Their occupancy title was inferior to the federal government's claim of ownership. [ Choose ] Francisco de Vitoria Johnson v. McIntosh, 1823 Royal Proclamation of 1763 Preemptive doctrine of discovery Expansive Doctrine of Discovery Mitchel v. U.S., 1835 Tee-Hit-Ton v. U.S., 1955 Absolutist doctrine of discovery Northwest Ordinance of 1787 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831 This argument asserts that indigenous nations have an occupancy or possessory right to lands, but that they are incompetent to manage those lands and require a benevolent guardian who holds full legal title to native lands. [ Choose ] Francisco de Vitoria Johnson v. McIntosh, 1823 Royal Proclamation of 1763 Preemptive doctrine of discovery Expansive Doctrine of Discovery Mitchel v. U.S., 1835 Tee-Hit-Ton v. U.S., 1955 Absolutist doctrine of discovery Northwest Ordinance of 1787 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831 "Indian occupation of land without government recognition of ownership creates no rights against taking or extinction by the United States protected by the Fifth Amendment or any other principle of law." Denied Fifth Amendment protection to the tribes. [ Choose ] Francisco de Vitoria Johnson v. McIntosh, 1823 Royal Proclamation of 1763 Preemptive doctrine of discovery Expansive Doctrine of Discovery Mitchel v. U.S., 1835 Tee-Hit-Ton v. U.S., 1955 Absolutist doctrine of discovery Northwest Ordinance of 1787 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831

This argument equates discovery with complete conquest. It denies indigenous nations aboriginal title to their lands and use and occupancy rights to their lands as well. [ Choose ] Francisco de Vitoria Johnson v. McIntosh, 1823 Royal Proclamation of 1763 Preemptive doctrine of discovery Expansive Doctrine of Discovery Mitchel v. U.S., 1835 Tee-Hit-Ton v. U.S., 1955 Absolutist doctrine of discovery Northwest Ordinance of 1787 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

POLS 410 Quiz 1

Related Documents