government wanted to see. The documents, when reasoning whether or not Indian Nations were independent of the United States, are often unclear and contradictory. In the Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia, Native Nations are said to “look to [the U.S. government] for protection; rely upon its kindness and its power; appeal to it for relief and to their wants, whereas in Worchester v. Georgia it is instead emphasized that “the Indian nations had always been considered as distinct, independent political communities, retaining their original natural rights, as the undisputed possessors of the soil.” Although both these statements may be valid in their contexts, it is interesting to take into account that Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia is making a case against the Cherokee directly, while in Worchester v. Georgia the Cherokee are involved as an indirect party. The variance in language toward Indian Nations furthers the idea that attitudes toward Indigenous people were easily altered depending on the
government wanted to see. The documents, when reasoning whether or not Indian Nations were independent of the United States, are often unclear and contradictory. In the Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia, Native Nations are said to “look to [the U.S. government] for protection; rely upon its kindness and its power; appeal to it for relief and to their wants, whereas in Worchester v. Georgia it is instead emphasized that “the Indian nations had always been considered as distinct, independent political communities, retaining their original natural rights, as the undisputed possessors of the soil.” Although both these statements may be valid in their contexts, it is interesting to take into account that Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia is making a case against the Cherokee directly, while in Worchester v. Georgia the Cherokee are involved as an indirect party. The variance in language toward Indian Nations furthers the idea that attitudes toward Indigenous people were easily altered depending on the