Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (18164)	12/3/2002 4:06:29 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 23908

As I understand it, 70% of the land over there is government owned - whatever the government is, that's who owns it - sort of like Idaho or Colorado. The US Government took away land under Treaties, that need to be honored. If white folks need to move than so be it, that is the Law. It is generally true that most of the land area of the US was acquired by the federal government by treaties of cession. And even though the treating parties were unequal in power and stature, those treaties should be honored by both sides. So the federal government and those who acquired land from it by purchase or grant (for example, my family's land back in Illinois) have good and valid title to their property - speaking from both a legal and moral position. Now it so happens that the places you and I live now were exceptions to this rule. The original owners of this part of Texas died off long ago. The original owners of the land you live on have living descendents and heirs however. And there was never any treaty ceding (or selling) the land. Though I'm no legal expert, I have to wonder if there is not a legal claim to be made out there at some point in the future. Of course, you don't have to wait for that. You can act tomorrow in accordance with your principles and give it back.