Posted on 05/10/2015 2:52:46 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Utah passed a resolution that has no legal standing.
You cannot “take back” land you never held title to.
As stated, I have no particular objection to UT or other western states controlling this land. I simply object to the ignorant claim that it was “taken away from them.”
What these people are demanding is that western states be treated differently from all other states.
I think all the states should liberate federal land.
Here’s the problem. The people of the state of Utah, to pick one, did not “buy” than land. The price was paid in blood by the “people of the United States” in the Mexican-American War. It is therefore not unreasonable for the United States to own that land until they decide to sell it.
As I’ve repeatedly stated, I would have no problem with turning over most federal lands to the states, or for that matter selling it to private buyers.
But it is just historically ignorant to claim that western states have been treated differently from other states, or that they have a legal right to “take back” land they never owned.
I don’t think that the western states should be treated differently, the states should own the public lands within its borders.
Fine. Let’s just recognize that this would be a new policy.
I suspect some of the states would find that this land would cost them more than it would bring in.
“AFAIK, no state ever had federal lands within its boundaries handed over to state title. “
ALL states except the first thirteen have had land transferred to them from the federal government.
The Northwest territories for example had to give the federal government a percentage of their land- which was returned. Florida and Missouri were, at one time, 90% owned by the federal government.
These early states got the federal government to release it’s title through legislative measures in congress.
Today’s western states don’t have the clout the early states did- simply because of numbers: they can’t form a majority as easily to pass legislation.
States had various amounts of public land deeded to them to help pay for schools, roads and other infrastructure project.
But as far as I know not a single state had all or even most public lands not already sold to private parties while it was a territory deeded to it at statehood.
I’m not wedded to this idea. If anybody has evidence to the contrary I’d really like to see it.
The NW territories were a little unusual. As I understand it, multiple states had claims. They ceded this land to the federal government. Two states, VA and CT, reserved some of the land to pay off their veterans.
I think it’s wildly inaccurate to say the NW territories “gave” some of their land to the federal government. The NW territories, like all other territories, had no existence except as provided for by Congress.
http://www.nplnews.com/toolbox/history/publiclandhistory.htm
From what I can tell, the site is non-partisan or at least centrist. though possibly that's a mistaken impression.
Here's what it says about Ohio entering the Union.
Ohio entered the Union as first state carved from the public domain. The federal government retained title to public lands within Ohio's boundaries but gave the state Section 16 in each township to help promote the establishment of public schools.
AFAIK, this precedent was followed for all subsequent states with the exception of TX. Also possibly AK and other states.
If anybody has evidence to the contrary, I'd be real interested to see it.
To avoid quibbling: whatever the territory was before , that entity “gave” land to the federal government when it became a territory.
Some would be returned on statehood and some would be retained, as set out in the Enabling Acts.
Typically the feds voluntarily sold off their lands directly or passed homestead acts. Both of which resulted in a ‘transfer’ to the state.
The West’s problem today is that they don’t have the legislative clout the earlier states had to force sales or Homestead Acts; the land has not become as desirable as, for instance, that in the Northwest Territories did; and the growth of a ‘progressive’ view that the federal government is a better steward.
No, they did not. They resulted in transfer of title to private individuals.
If you think of private ownership as belonging to the state, possibly that's why we disagree.
The state is a governmental entity just like the federal government. Most states own at least some land: office buildings, parks, state forests, etc. For example, 10% of Utah land is owned by the state.
Much like the federal government except on a smaller scale.
If federal land in western states was transferred to the states they would simply expand their land bureaucracies to run them. Or possibly sell some of it.
But with exception of land with minerals, do you really think anybody wants to homestead on or buy public land in Nevada?
OK, I agree some land will have value by location. Along major highways, for instance.
But the West is a really big place. Most of this land is far from anything, and has no water. What do you think people are going to do with it?
What do you see this land selling for? $100/acre? $1000? $10,000?
Let's assume $500 per acre. To buy one square mile would take $320,000. On which you might be able to run as few as 32 cow-calf units. Which might bring in a gross income of maybe $40,000/year.
I don't know if that's a viable business proposition, but I kind of doubt it. Especially if you consider that maintaining, fencing, etc. a square mile has considerable expense to it. Not to mention labor and other expenses.
Such a sad day that it’s come to this. I’m guessing you’re an admin, or you reported me. The post could have been edited.
Anyway, such is the so called free speech of today.
All hail PC!
If I wasn’t so numb to the direction we’re going it would mean nothing now.
Quote marks don’t mean anything, whatever.
It’s interesting that you never mentioned the US constitution. It’s also interesting that despite the fact that I mentioned lands so-called “managed” by the US Forest service that I can personally vouch that the forests “managed” by the US Government are in bad shape. The two Japanese bark beetles that I had to brush off my pants might be a clue. Well, other than someone like you they would be a clue. You would rather attack the messenger than deal with the problem.
As for the Constitution, here's Article 4, 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.
Territories and all land in them belonged in full title as well as sovereignty entirely to the United States. Any disposition of this land, to state or private ownership, was entirely up to Congress.
When new states were made, all public lands remained by default in ownership of the USA, except as specifically alienated to state or private ownership.
For instance, the state of OH was granted one of the 36 sections from each township to sell and pay for schools. That's roughly 3% of the state. The rest remaining in federal ownership till purchased.
What in the Constitution do you think prohibits the present system?
I did report your comment, TB.
Not to be a male appendage, but because we don’t use the “f” word fully spelled out here.
Otherwise we will be no different than Democrat Underground, with all of their foul language.
And you have been here a long time—you know that.
I sensed you had a lot of frustration, and that gets to me too at times.
I self delete a lot of my comments before I post on some topics because they would reflect badly on the forum.
I specified that the objectionable part was the last paragraph, and I guess the moderator here could not edit within the comment or choose to delete the whole thing.
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.