The states and its citizens are to be equal to other states and its citizens so why did some states get the majority of the land in them and other did not?
Two federal land purchases, one from France the other from Mexico..
A State form in each, Nebraska and Nevada.
One State and it citizen own 80 + % of it self and one is 80+% owned by the Fed..why?
How can you say the two states and there citizens were treated equal by the Federal
The land is not private Federal property. .it is land held is common by all US citizens for the benefit of US citizens
...the key is common ownership not private government ownership..
Common ownership and common right to public grazing land and water is a long understood concept...many a public place in older big cities began as common public grazing land...the Commons in Boston for one.
The common citizens had a common RIGHT to its use for its intended use.
But more, in these Federal territory once they became States there was a promise for common federal land in the territory to covert to common State and County ownership not the other way and convert to private Federal land..BLM is treating this as if it were 100% Federal private property...
Not sure what you mean by “Federal private property”, but the question is who holds title, and how it is held.
If the Bundys or their predecessors in interest held title to the land in “fee simple” at the time Congress created the Nevada territory, then the land could not have been Federalized. Thus all the old families in New Orleans continued to own their property (to which they previously acquired title under French law) after the Louisiana purchase.
As to why Nevada let the Federal government retain 80% of the land as Federal land — you’d have to look into the motives of the men who formed the first state government.
I have a sneaking suspicion that they were open range cattlemen who wanted to continue their existing arrangements for grazing etc. — never anticipating that the Federal government would change from a protector into a monster.