What comes to mind when you hear the term ‘primary source’? When I hear primary source, I immediately think of direct evidence of something or someone. A primary source is a source that derives from a person or something that has personal experience or contact with something. Do you believe primary sources are always vital? I do believe primary sources are vital, but I believe they are most important when it comes to gathering verifiable information relating to history. What is Worcester v. Georgia? Worcester v. Georgia was a legal case where the United States Supreme Court in 1832 of March removed the sentence of Samuel Worcester and supported that the Georgia criminal law which outlawed non-Native Americans from being able to be on Native American lands without holding a license from the state was unlawful.
This analysis of Worcester v. Georgia is primarily about the rights of the Cherokee tribe in Georgia and their relations with the state of Georgia. Worcester v. Georgia is a landmark case in the Supreme Court. The intended audience was for public consumption being it was an important court case. This document was created in 1832. Each branch of government neglected to uphold a balance of power. The president failed by disregarding a Supreme Court decision which was that the state of Georgia did not have the authority to undo boundary lines previously agreed upon by treaty between Congress and the Indians. This law was passed by Georgia legislator which tried to control who could be in Cherokee land and the state of Georgia did not have power according to the Constitution to enforce a law. The Supreme court failed by not taking adequate steps to enforce the decision. The Supreme Court judiciary can file for a judicial review if their decision is not enforced.
This situation tells us that checks and balances are sometimes not followed and if decisions are not enforce then there needs to be a judicial review. A vital part of the checks and balances in the constitution is the power of judicial review. What is a judicial review? A judicial review is where the courts have the power to assert that acts by the other branches of government are unlawful and goes against the constitution, and therefore unenforceable.
In 1838, the United States government began forcing Cherokee people off of their land. This became know as the Trail of Tears. The trail of tears was when about 15,000 Cherokee were forced off their land and marched westward on a strenuous journey which resulted in the death of almost 4,000 of their people. The Worcester v. Georgia case decision had an impact on the expansion of the cotton kingdom because the cotton kingdom was growing, and Indians were in the way. The reason the state of Georgia wanted the Cherokee off the land was so the land could be used for cotton.
In conclusion, Worcester v. Georgia demonstrated the rights of the Cherokee tribe in Georgia and their relations with the state of Georgia. The state of Georgia chose to unlawfully pass and enforce a law in which they had no right to do. The president failed because he disregarded a Supreme Court decision, and he did not do his constitutional duty of making sure the laws are devotedly executed. The Supreme Court failed by not filing for judicial review after their decision was not enforced. The Trail of Tears relate to Worcester v. Georgia because the Cherokee were yet and still forced off of their land and they had an arduous journey where many also died. The Worcester v. Georgia case decision impacted the development of the cotton kingdom because Cherokee people where in the way of land needed for cotton.