Papal Bulls
Papal Bulls created the foundation for the Doctrine of Discovery.
Repudiations
Repuidations of the Doctrine of Discovery by religious organizations and faith communities
Recent posts
Tee Hit Ton Indians v. United States (1955) - Domination Translator Series - Part 9
Tee Hit Ton v. U.S. (1955) denied Native peoples compensation for lands taken by the U.S. government under the Doctrine of Discovery.
Tee Hit Ton Indians v. United States (1955) - Domination Translator Series - Part 9 Permalink
Tee Hit Ton v. U.S. (1955) denied Native peoples compensation for lands taken by the U.S. government under the Doctrine of Discovery. Outcome archive context.
President “Teddy” Roosevelt’s Monroe Doctrine Corollary - Domination Translator Series - Part 8
Teddy Roosevelt’s 1904 Monroe Doctrine Corollary asserted U.S. imperial dominion over the Western Hemisphere and its indigenous peoples.
President ‘Teddy’ Roosevelt’s Monroe Doctrine Corollary - Domination Translator Series - Part 8 Permalink
Teddy Roosevelt’s 1904 Monroe Doctrine Corollary asserted U.S. imperial dominion over the Western Hemisphere and its indigenous peoples. Outcome archive.
Martin v. Waddell (1842) - Domination Translator Series - Part 7
Martin v. Waddell (1842) applied the Doctrine of Discovery to oyster beds, asserting European discovery gave absolute property rights.
Martin v. Waddell (1842) - Domination Translator Series - Part 7 Permalink
Martin v. Waddell (1842) applied the Doctrine of Discovery to oyster beds, asserting European discovery gave absolute property rights. Outcome archive context.
The Monroe Doctrine (1823) - Domination Translator Series - Part 6
The Monroe Doctrine (1823) extended U.S. claims of ‘ultimate dominion’ over the Western Hemisphere, following the Doctrine of Discovery.
The Monroe Doctrine (1823) - Domination Translator Series - Part 6 Permalink
The Monroe Doctrine (1823) extended U.S. claims of ‘ultimate dominion’ over the Western Hemisphere, following the Doctrine of Discovery. Outcome archive.
The Marshall Trilogy: Worcester v. Georgia (1832) - Domination Translator Series - Part 5
The 1832 Worcester v. Georgia ruling protected Native nations from state laws, yet affirmed federal domination under the Doctrine of Discovery.
The Marshall Trilogy: Worcester v. Georgia (1832) - Domination Translator Series - Part 5 Permalink
The 1832 Worcester v. Georgia ruling protected Native nations from state laws, yet affirmed federal domination under the Doctrine of Discovery. Outcome.
The Marshall Trilogy: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) - Domination Translator Series - Part 4
In 1831, the Cherokee Nation sought Supreme Court protection from Georgia’s laws designed to annihilate their political existence.
The Marshall Trilogy: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) - Domination Translator Series - Part 4 Permalink
In 1831, the Cherokee Nation sought Supreme Court protection from Georgia’s laws designed to annihilate their political existence. Outcome archive context.
The Marshall Trilogy: Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823) - Domination Translator Series - Part 3
The 1823 landmark Johnson v. McIntosh case established the Doctrine of Discovery as U.S. law, denying Native nations’ property rights.
The Marshall Trilogy: Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823) - Domination Translator Series - Part 3 Permalink
The 1823 landmark Johnson v. McIntosh case established the Doctrine of Discovery as U.S. law, denying Native nations’ property rights. Outcome archive context.
Fletcher v. Peck (1810) - Domination Translator Series - Part 2
The Fletcher v. Peck case examined whether the U.S. courts would recognize Indian title to land, and how colonial charters justified domination.