Posted on 05/19/2014 6:10:41 AM PDT by rktman
I suspect it may come as a surprise to many people that the federal government owns just over a quarter of the nation’s landmass and, other than land set aside for military bases and naval ports that may seem excessive. It is.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Your outline of history is I believe accurate.
But it contradicts other posters on this page who think the federals did, or possibly just should have, transferred title to unsold land to each individual state whenever it entered statehood.
From the little I’ve been able to find out, this never happened.
The state of OH, for instance, had only about 60,000 people when it became a state. Fairly obviously, the vast majority of the land was not occupied by this sparse population.
AFAIK, the land remained in the ownership of the federal government until it was sold. It was not transferred to the state for it to sell for the benefit of its own treasury.
The land had been fought for and acquired by the people of the United States, not by the few people who had settled in Ohio by 1803.
I believe the issue you describe about the lands north of the Ohio River were settled under the old Articles of Confederation, not under the Constitution.
But they were settled in about the way you describe.
Kentucky had originally been part of VA, and TN part of NC. Things worked differently in those states.
I am not knowledgeable of what happened to unsold land after the state entered the union.
Also, I would expect some of the land was purchased by commercial interests and speculators, so hard to gauge what was sold based on just the population number.
Best wishes. Interesting topic.
I may have got that wrong. I gave the book away after I read it.
Thanx.
That’s fine, but when the Constitution specifically says Congress is authorized to tax incomes, it’s pretty difficult to get the average person to understand why they’re not legal.
For what it’s worth department.......
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf
Federal land ownership began when the original 13 states ceded their “western” lands
(between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River) to the central
government between 1781 and 1802. Substantial land acquisition in North America
via treaties and purchases began with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and culminated
with the purchase of Alaska in 1867. In total, the federal government acquired 1.8
billion acres in North America.
1803 - Louisiana Purchase
1846 - Oregon Territory
1848 - Mexico Purchase
1853 - Gadsen Purchase
1867 - Alaska Purchase
Finally found some info about public lands and statehood.
In the state of Ohio, most land was still public (title owned by US) at statehood in 1803. Land continued to be sold off over the decades, with one federal land office, Chilicothee, closing in 1876 after 94,182 sales.
Some land wasn’t even acquired by extinguishing Indian title until well after OH became a state.
Here’s an excellent publication by the state of Ohio showing how most of its land went from federal to private ownership over the course of the 19th century.
https://ohioauditor.gov/publications/OhioLandsBook.pdf
In 1841 a Land Act was passed giving pre-emption rights to squatters on public (federal) lands, most of which were in states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemption_Act_of_1841
IOW, unsold land didn’t go to states at statehood. Title remained with the federal government until sold, granted or otherwise transferred.
This link gives some history on the Federal gov’t land acquisitions.
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf
The intent of law is best defined by understanding what the legislative record indicates. The words chosen can often been modified by lawyers and later people to be other than original intent.
‘Some of the colonies had competing claims for territories well into the west.
The congress decided and the president signed (don’t have a cite) to survey the northwest territory, settle the boundary disputes of the original colonies and sell off parcels of lands.’
If the US was authorized to sell the land to which the states (former colonies) had claims, then the title had to be somehow transferred to the US from the colonies.
If they states gave or sold the ownership to the US, then they still followed the Clause 8 requirement.
In Canada the government owns 89% of the land. They should talk.
Iirc the colonial boundary disputed were settled after the survey of the area. Then the survey of the rest of the territory was completed and parcels sold. I don’t think the Feds took over and sold land in established states.
And here: Article IV, Section 3: "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."
Better yet sell the land to the states and let them take the chance on whether it's worthless or not.
And I'm sure you can point to the law that says that, right?
It’s clearly stated here:
Article 1 Section 8:...
You might also want to look at Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Is the federal government still selling off land today as they did before, or did the reasonable selling of land stop after gold was discovered in the west, and ultimately other minerals and oil was discovered in the west?
If I had to make a guess, I'd say that the federal government today is hoarding the land for itself, not selling it off like it used to, because it wants to: 1) keep the mineral rights for itself, 2) keep the states in the current status quo by restricting the ability of western states to continue to grow in population, and 3) block off future use of the land in an attempt to manipulate the people of the United States.
It would be enlightening to see the patterns of federal land sales over the decades, to see when they stopped selling lands, or when the pace of selling lands changed.
-PJ
I’d be interested in that myself.
The basics are that BLM was created in 1946. But land sales continued, though at an increasingly slower rate, through 1976, when the Federal Land Policy and Management Act was passed.
That’s what ended even the pretense of disposal of federal lands.
Thanks. An excellent overview.
1. Eastern states were the original colonies and were pretty much settled before becoming states, therefore there wasn't any "federal" land to own (at least until ratification of the Constitution in 1789). Western states did not have this prior condition.
2. The last of the mid-western states (the Dakotas) were admitted to the union in the 1880s. Most of the remaining midwestern states were admitted to the union by the 1840s during the period of "manifest destiny." Again, these states also see minimal federal ownership.
3. Federal ownership and retention of lands in the west seems to have begun post-civil war, and especially post discovery of gold in the west, and then silver shortly afterward.
Today, I think it's all about mineral rights. We already see Obama bragging about growth in oil production (taking credit for private lands) while he is simultaneously blocking production on federal land. Anytime that anyone pursues exploiting America's natural resources, liberals move in to block it under the guise of environmental extremism, as if they are trying to keep the resources in the ground until such time as a new regime ousts Americans from America. Then the New World Order will swoop in and use these abundant unclaimed resources for themselves.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.