Summary Of Lindsay G. Robertson's Conquest By Law

Lindsay G. Robertson's Conquest by Law: How the Discovery of America Dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of Their Lands centers on the landmark 1823 Supreme Court case Johnson vs. M'Intosh. Robertson's research provides previously undiscovered knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the case, placing the case in a new context both politically and judicially. Robertson tells the story of a costly mistake, one made by the American judicial system but paid for by an indigenous people who to this day suffer from the effects of American settlement.

As reviewer Christopher Tomlin writes, "Robertson's narrative is far less concerned with parsing its legal doctrine, than with the historical circumstances of the case itself." Robertson begins his

A victory for the plaintiff would have erased the government's Proclamation-based claim to the land and the right to sell it, thus upholding Murray's 1773 purchase. As reviewer Ellen Pearson notes, Robertson's research proves that the case was a complete forgery: "Johnson was a collusive case... the [company] tried to take advantage of an early national court system still in its formative stages and, therefore, subject to considerable manipulation by attorneys who sought to turn the system to their clients' advantage." Robertson¬—in uncovering how Harper handpicked the plaintiff, defendant, and the attorneys on both sides— "amply proves the collusion," according to

Perhaps it is time to rethink this." At first, I dismissed his claim that we "now embrace" the Discovery Doctrine, for the days of Marshall, Jackson, and the "Trail of Tears" are two centuries behind us. But the story Robertson goes on to tell serves as a wake-up call. By living on lands which we originally claimed by "discovery," we continue to ratify and benefit from the displacement of Native Americans, regardless of how long ago our ancestors' transgressions occurred. Upon researching the Discovery Doctrine, I was shocked to find that the Doctrine has been explicitly cited in a Supreme Court decision as recently as 2005, in a case regarding my own home state. We live in a country governed by a Constitution formed over 225 years ago and amended only 17 times since 1791. We operate under a Common Law system in which rulings handed down hundreds of years ago are continually upheld as "precedent" unless the courts take active measures to repeal them. Whether we realize it or not, many of the rules by which we live—and indeed, the manner in which we claim ownership of the land on which we live— are the product of antiquated decisions made in accordance with contemporary morals and prejudices that today we denounce as appalling, yet continually allow to exist in the very foundation of our society. Robertson is right: it is time for us to rethink,