Thomas Jennings was a free man born in 1791 in New York City. He was 30 years old when he was granted a patent for a dry cleaning process. In his early 20s Thomas Jennings became a tailor, and later opened a dry cleaning business in the city. As a tailor. Jennings' skills were so admired that people near and far came to him to alter or custom tailor items of clothing for them. Eventually, Jennings reputation grew such that he was able to open his own store on Church street which grew into one of the largest clothing stores in New York City. While running his business Jennings developed dry-scouring. He had many customers complain of their clothes being ruined by stains and so he began experimenting with cleaners and mixtures that would remove the stains without harming the material. He earned a large amount of money as a tailor and even more with his dry scouring invention and most of the money he earned went to his abolitionist activities. In 1831, Thomas Jennings became assistant secretary for the First Annual Convention of the People of Color in Philadelphia, PA. Thomas L. Jennings Dry Scouring technique created modern day dry cleaning. Jennings was fortunate that he was a free man at the time of his invention. Besides all the other indignities and cruelties slaves had to face, they were also ineligible to hold a patent. Under the US patent laws of 1793 a person must sign an oath or declaration stating that they were a citizen of the USA. While there were, apparently, provisions through which a slave could enjoy patent protection, the ability of a slave to seek out, receive and defend a patent was unlikely. Later, in 1858, the patent office changed the laws, stating that since slaves were not citizens, they could not hold a patent. Furthermore, the court said that the slave owner, not being the true inventor could not apply for a patent either. Thomas Jennings died in New York City in 1856.

McCarty was born on March 7, 1908, in Shubuta, Mississippi. She was raised in nearby Hattiesburg by her aunt and grandmother. McCarty, who never married and had no children, lived frugally in a house without air conditioning. She never had a car or learned to drive, so she walked everywhere, including the grocery store that was one mile from her home. When she was 8 years old, McCarty opened a savings account at a bank in Hattiesburg and began depositing the coins she earned from her laundry work. She would eventually open accounts in several local banks. By the time McCarty retired at age 86, her hands crippled by arthritis, she had saved $280,000. She set aside a pension for herself to live on, a donation to her church, and small inheritances for three of her relatives. The remainder—$150,000—she donated to the University of Southern Mississippi, a school that had remained all-white until the 1960s. McCarty stipulated that her gift be used for scholarships for Black students from southern Mississippi who otherwise would not be able to enroll in college due to financial hardship. Business leaders in Hattiesburg matched her bequest and hundreds of additional donations poured in from around the country, bringing the total endowment to nearly half a million dollars. The first beneficiary of McCarty’s largesse was Stephanie Bullock, an 18-year-old honors student from Hattiesburg, who received a $1,000 scholarship. Bullock subsequently visited McCarty regularly and drove her around town on errands. In 1998 the University awarded McCarty an honorary degree. She received an honorary doctorate from Harvard University, and President Bill Clinton awarded her the Presidential Citizens Medal. McCarty died of liver cancer on September 26, 1999, at the age of 91. In 2019 McCarty’s home was moved to Hattiesburg’s Sixth Street Museum District and turned into a museum.

The idea that “discovery” of this continent by Europeans gave European countries ownership of Native lands is a myth that has been very detrimental to Indian and Alaska Native nations.  Countering this false idea has been part of Indian life for generations.  Yet many government officials, including judges, still believe this nonsense, partly because it is repeated so often.  Like all racist ideas, this one is simply not true.  The Europeans did not discover this land, and they did not gain ownership of Native land by reason of discovery.

The idea that “discovering” nations gained ownership of Native lands when they arrived has never been accepted as a legal rule in United State law or in international law.  It has always been the law of this country, even in colonial times, that the “discovering” country did not gain ownership of Native land but only the exclusive right to buy or acquire the land if the Native owners should be willing to part with it.  Chief Justice John Marshall understood this and made it part of federal law in 1832.  Indian nations held the full rights of ownership to their lands, and in many situations, these rights were recognized and guaranteed (not granted) by treaties with the United States.

In international law, discovery gave rights only to uninhabited lands and did not diminish the legal rights of Indians and Alaska Natives to lands and resources.  The so-called “discovery doctrine” should not be used to justify any such diminishment today.  "Discovery" of this continent, inhabited entirely by Indian and other Native nations, gave only the exclusive right to buy the land from the Native owners if they were willing to sell.  This right is now called the right of pre-emption.  This right governed the relationships among “discovering” nations, and had no effect on the land rights of Native nations.

The Supreme Court has accepted and reaffirmed this body of law even in modern cases.

Indian nations own millions of acres of land today, most of it lands that they have always owned and lived on.  Obviously, they did not lose their lands upon discovery.  As flawed and unjust as federal Indian law is, it generally protects Indian land ownership and does not regard “discovery” as taking away these lands.

It is disturbing to see statements by some Indian advocates saying that the “doctrine of discovery” actually took away or denied Indian land rights as a matter of law.  If this were true as a matter of law, Indian nations would have enormous problems maintaining any form of ownership of their present lands and would seldom or never be able to make claims for the return of lands illegally taken.  Fortunately, the doctrine of discovery did not, as a matter of law, actually take away any Indian land, and we should not say that it did.

The “doctrine of discovery” is undoubtedly racist and unjust.  It’s main point is to claim - falsely - that Native nations lost their land rights to the “discovering” countries.  But this is not true as a matter of law or as a matter of history, and we should be sure not to suggest that it is true.  Despite this, we can and should continue to attack the “doctrine of discovery” as a completely false and unjust idea that has no place in our law or our country.

Native land is wasteland or a savage wilderness that no one owns, uses, or wants and is available for the taking by colonists—therefore any aboriginal interests in the land are extinguished as soon as British subjects settle the area.

Native peoples have no concept of property, do not claim any property rights, or are incapable of owning land.

Christians have a right to take land from non-Christians because heathens lack property rights.

1. A Critical Pedagogy for Native American Education Policy 
2. American Indian Nations: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow
3. In the Courts of the Conquerer: The 10 Worst Indian Law Cases Ever Decided
4. An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States (ReVisioning American History)