"Respecting the original justice of the claim": reality and legality in John Marshall's epic of Indian divestiture, «Johnson v. M'Intosh»

This thesis examines Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court John Marshall's opinion for _Johnson and Graham's Lessee v. William M'Intosh_ (1823) in light of the fictional history he employed in justifying the decision of the Court. I work from Hannah Arendt's conception...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Bullock, Stefan
Other Authors: David C Hensley (Internal/Supervisor)
Format: Others
Language:en
Published: McGill University 2010
Subjects:
Online Access:http://digitool.Library.McGill.CA:80/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=86951
Description
Summary:This thesis examines Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court John Marshall's opinion for _Johnson and Graham's Lessee v. William M'Intosh_ (1823) in light of the fictional history he employed in justifying the decision of the Court. I work from Hannah Arendt's conceptions of myth and legend as corrective of history, and conclude in line with Milner S. Ball that the legal transcription of custom into statute finds a natural corollary in the poetic license exercised by forging precedence from obiter dicta. In my examination, I treat law as literature insofar as it allows one to elucidate the elements of _Johnson v. M'Intosh_ that are amorally imperial in nature, and on which America is founded. While legend and law can be formally quite similar, I argue that racist, ethnocentric decisions like _Johnson v. M'Intosh_ demonstrate that if we desire for our laws to endure as the paramount social embodiment of justice, it is essential that the forms of law and legend remain disparate. As I conclude, the violence done Indian tribes by the statutory institution of Marshall's mythical opinion as authoritative, "true" history is unforgiveable and irreparable. === Cette thèse examine l'opinion du président de la Cour suprême des Etats-Unis, John Marshall, sur l'arrêt _Johnson and Graham's Lessee v. William M'Intosh_ (1823), au regard de l'histoire fictionnelle qu'il employait pour justifier la décision de la Cour. Cette thèse étudie la conception d'Hannah Arendt du mythe et de la légende comme correctif de l'Histoire, et conclut, en accord avec Milner S. Ball, que la transcription légale de la coutume en loi trouve un corollaire naturel dans la licence poétique exercée dans la construction de la préséance de l'obiter dicta. Puisque épopée et loi peuvent être formellement similaires, je soutiens que des décisions racistes et ethnocentriques telles que _Johnson v. M'Intosh_ démontrent que si nous désirons que nos lois restent l'incarnation sociale prédominante de justice, il est essentiel que les textes de lois et l'épopée restent distincts. Comme je conclus, la violence faite aux tribues indiennes par l'institution, par Marshall, de l'épopée comme faisant autorité car officielle, "vraie" Histoire, est impardonnable et irréparable.