User:Benkarnell/Ideas

In 1790, American Secretary of War Henry Knox concluded a grand treaty with Alexander McGillvary, leader of the Creek Nation. The Creek leaders were welcomed in New York with all the pomp and dignity befitting leaders of a sovereign power. McGillvary secured a vast swathe of land for the Creeks, largely within the borders of the State of Georgia. This was the first major treaty between an Indian nation and the United States since the US had adopted its new Constitution. It seemed to set the tone for the new republic's dealings with its indiginous people.

But Knox soon found that he lacked the military strength to enforce his promises. Before the ink on the treaty was dry, pioneers - settlers - squatters - were pouring into Creek territory with the full blessing of the Georgian government. The U.S. military, underfunded and undermanned, could do nothing to stop them.

POD: Knox consulted with President Washington and Attorney General Edmund Randolph. The three leaders were all of federalist temperment and were aghast at Georgia's open flaunting of United States law. They decided to "enforce with the gavel where we cannot with the bayonnet:" the case was brought before the Supreme Court, the first case of its kind in U.S. history.

The court of Chief Justice John Jay, also dominated by federalists, ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the landmark case, United States v. Georgia (1792). For failing to abide by federal law, Georgia was fined $100,000 (is this a realistic amount?), a large sum that Georgia was reluctantly forced to pass on to the squatters. The case set key precedents: Federal law now trumped state law, completely and unequivocally. Also, states could be fined for failing to respect the rights of Indian nations. The constantly cash-strapped U.S. government would often turn to this new source of revenue in the years to come.

Ideas for fallout:
 * Accelerates the states' rights controversy, with Indian Removal joining slavery as a cause for Southern animosity toward the federal government.
 * Three decades of legal precedent may hamper Andrew Jackson's bid to remove all Indians. The Indians, at least the "Civilized Tribes", have a stronger position, more territory, and more support from the U.S. government.
 * Likely that this policy would be carried across the Mississippi and lead to more long-term arrangements with western tribes
 * The lack of displacement leads to even more cultural interaction between Indians and U.S.