Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Give me a break. This is a ludicrous thread, but that statement goes above and beyond.
Annihilation was how conquest took place. You didn’t see the Romans invade and give their victims “reservations” to live in. They just killed everyone. The American government actually showed some mercy. They conquered the Indians yes, but then they created an out, a chance for continuation. I call that an evolution, and that is exactly what it was. It was better than simply killing almost everyone and enslaving those who were left. It was an advancement in civilized behavior at a time of savagery and conquest.
Annihilation was how conquest took place. You didn’t see the Romans invade and give their victims “reservations” to live in. They just killed everyone. The American government actually showed some mercy. They conquered the Indians yes, but then they created an out, a chance for continuation. I call that an evolution, and that is exactly what it was. It was better than simply killing almost everyone and enslaving those who were left. It was an advancement in civilized behavior at a time of savagery and conquest.
A condition of the scenario given is that the claim isn't fake and phony and the Native Americans did have the original deed fron the same US government (since 1776, not 1600 tribal governments as you accuse) as today, who just ignored the claims. I'n not saying this scenario actually happened in real life. This is just a what-if hypothetical question if it had happened.
Except in the territories, the U.S. government never issued deeds. The recording system is a creature of state, county and maybe local governments. Those titles in turn emanated from royal charters. In other words a "U.S. Government" deed would be as phony as a $3 bill.
Except in the territories, the U.S. government never issued deeds. The recording system is a creature of state, county and maybe local governments. Those titles in turn emanated from royal charters. In other words a "U.S. Government" deed would be as phony as a $3 bill.
I never knew about royal charters. I searched and it appears that the charters belong to the colony, which evolved into the state. So, it looks like the individual colonies started selling off parts of their charters and gave deeds to individuals and the states afterwards continued honoring them, did I get it correct? Now, if the state government somehow got dissolved while the national government stayed intact, then the deeds would potentially be worthless?
I never knew about royal charters. I searched and it appears that the charters belong to the colony, which evolved into the state. So, it looks like the individual colonies started selling off parts of their charters and gave deeds to individuals and the states afterwards continued honoring them, did I get it correct? Now, if the state government somehow got dissolved while the national government stayed intact, then the deeds would potentially be worthless?
The royal charters are an intriguing part of America's past.Their boundaries often internally conflicted. For example the Massachusetts charter extended westward indefinitely across the continent. That didn't play too well with the New York charter. What is now Vermont was at one time claimed by both New York and New Hampshire, and in part Massachusetts. Connecticut was a mess that even I don't pretend to understand.
Eventually these sorted out into the 13 colonies as we know them. Virginia wound up ceding it's Western reaches and that become Kentucky. I forget whether that was the 14th or 15th state. Vermont gave up it's "Republic of Vermont" status when New York and New Hampshire dropped their claims. The Northwest Territories, comprising modern Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Minnesota east of the Mississippi was gradually hacked into those states. Its main distinction was forbidding slavery from its inception.
It was more likely, to answer your other question, that the federal, not state governments would dissolve, The U.S. under the Articles of Confederation came awfully close. George Washington's inauguration as President of the United States in New York City on April 30, 1789 was hardly foreordained. But yes, it the states blew up, so would most titles to land, as it was state authority that gave them their vitality.
The royal charters are an intriguing part of America's past.Their boundaries often internally conflicted. For example the Massachusetts charter extended westward indefinitely across the continent. That didn't play too well with the New York charter. What is now Vermont was at one time claimed by both New York and New Hampshire, and in part Massachusetts. Connecticut was a mess that even I don't pretend to understand.
Eventually these sorted out into the 13 colonies as we know them. Virginia wound up ceding it's Western reaches and that become Kentucky. I forget whether that was the 14th or 15th state. Vermont gave up it's "Republic of Vermont" status when New York and New Hampshire dropped their claims. The Northwest Territories, comprising modern Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Minnesota east of the Mississippi was gradually hacked into those states. Its main distinction was forbidding slavery from its inception.
It was more likely, to answer your other question, that the federal, not state governments would dissolve, The U.S. under the Articles of Confederation came awfully close. George Washington's inauguration as President of the United States in New York City on April 30, 1789 was hardly foreordained. But yes, it the states blew up, so would most titles to land, as it was state authority that gave them their vitality.
Thank for very much for your answer and history lesson. It was very important. Now I know that the state and county government is generally way more important than the federal government for real estate purposes.
The royal charters are an intriguing part of America's past.Their boundaries often internally conflicted. For example the Massachusetts charter extended westward indefinitely across the continent. That didn't play too well with the New York charter. What is now Vermont was at one time claimed by both New York and New Hampshire, and in part Massachusetts. Connecticut was a mess that even I don't pretend to understand.
Eventually these sorted out into the 13 colonies as we know them. Virginia wound up ceding it's Western reaches and that become Kentucky. I forget whether that was the 14th or 15th state. Vermont gave up it's "Republic of Vermont" status when New York and New Hampshire dropped their claims. The Northwest Territories, comprising modern Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Minnesota east of the Mississippi was gradually hacked into those states. Its main distinction was forbidding slavery from its inception.
It was more likely, to answer your other question, that the federal, not state governments would dissolve, The U.S. under the Articles of Confederation came awfully close. George Washington's inauguration as President of the United States in New York City on April 30, 1789 was hardly foreordained. But yes, it the states blew up, so would most titles to land, as it was state authority that gave them their vitality.
Thank you! You've opened my eyes! I just found out from you that the history of even the US besides the Civil War was messy. In the pre-Civil War era, I always thought the British-descended whites had it all good compared to today (besides less advanced tech and healthcare) and it was all sunshine (figuratively) and roses everyday for them at the expense of only the Native Americans and Black slaves suffering. I always thought English-descended people in the US were 10 times happier than today when they didn't have to have black neighbors, who are much more likely to do crime and neglect their property, or homeless (mostly black) on the street. Apparently, my assumption was wrong too. Not blaming blacks here, I respect the good ones of them, just stating my observations.
Thank for very much for your answer and history lesson. It was very important. Now I know that the state and county government is generally way more important than the federal government for real estate purposes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 00crashtest
Thank you! You've opened my eyes! I just found out from you that the history of even the US besides the Civil War was messy. In the pre-Civil War era, I always thought the British-descended whites had it all good compared to today (besides less advanced tech and healthcare) and it was all sunshine (figuratively) and roses everyday for them at the expense of only the Native Americans and Black slaves suffering. I always thought English-descended people in the US were 10 times happier than today when they didn't have to have black neighbors, who are much more likely to do crime and neglect their property, or homeless (mostly black) on the street. Apparently, my assumption was wrong too. Not blaming blacks here, I respect the good ones of them, just stating my observations.
You are welcome. I may not have all of the details 100% correct but it's pretty close. With events such as the Barbary Coast wars, the War of 1812, the tensions leading up to the Missouri Compromise, the Mexican War and the struggles over slavery every time a state was admitted the history was anything but bland. The Civil War did not come out of nowhere.
That being said U.S. history looks, correctly, almost idyllic compared to European history during this era. The Napoleonic Wars and the band-aid of the Congress of Vienna were serious developments. There was the Irish Potato Famine, the Paris Commune, and lots of other rebellions focusing on German-speaking areas in 1848 and surrounding years. The overall lack of opportunity and stultifying atmosphere across Europe, combined with the growth of oceanic travel, fed the immigration streams from Europe and eventually Asia to a better, but hardly perfect, U.S. and Canada.
The federal government issued land patents on land settlers and others purchased or homesteaded. It's basically equivalent to a deed. If in researching title you come to a land patent, then the current owners based on the title search are the lawful owners. Period. In the territories the federal government controlled. Not in the original 13 colonies or in Vermont which was a republic and then the 14th state. Land patents can be searched: https://glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx
This is where some natives received deeds to allotments of land in the reservations. What wasn't divided up to individual natives was then sold to the government and eventually to settlers. As this second link explains, many reservations are checkerboards of native owned and non-native owned lands. But the current non-native owners of those parcels are the legally recognized owners of those parcels.
Annihilation was how conquest took place. You didn’t see the Romans invade and give their victims “reservations” to live in. They just killed everyone. The American government actually showed some mercy. They conquered the Indians yes, but then they created an out, a chance for continuation. I call that an evolution, and that is exactly what it was. It was better than simply killing almost everyone and enslaving those who were left. It was an advancement in civilized behavior at a time of savagery and conquest.
The Indian tribes had been fighting and butchering each other long before the White man arrived.
After an enemy tribe was wiped out usually only the children survived. (Although women were sometimes enslaved.) Children ere needed by the victors because the birth rate for Indians was low due to disease. Most tribes were nomadic and when they set up camp the water they used was often disease ridden.
The Indians ruled the West for decades after the White man appeared. Their ability to fight on horseback was unmatched. Their ability to read the stars and travel by night was also top-notch
However, when the Texas Rangers obtain the Colt five shot pistol in 1847 the tide turned. The Rangers adapted many of the Indians fighting tactics and now armed with a five shot pistol the Indians days of rule were about to end.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
