You most likely live in a dwelling that sits on a piece of land that you either rent or own. It belongs to you or one or more someone's. I happen to be fortunate enough to claim a piece of land as my own. I am a ‘property owner’. So, how and when did this concept of property come about? I decided to find out.
My property was once part of a much larger tract of land owned by a rancher. I don’t know who owned the property before the rancher owned it. It might have been handed down through several generations -- it might have been a homestead. When the rancher died, the family couldn’t afford or didn’t want to continue ranching. They sold it, and then one or more real estate deals later, I bought it. That’s all pretty straightforward; however, I wanted to wind the real estate clock back to ‘a beginning’.
Mexican – American War (1846-48).
My journey back in time began with the annexation of Texas by the US in 1845. Mexico was none too happy about it all, claiming that the border between Texas and Mexico ended at the Nueces River. The US claimed that it extended to the Rio Grande, and in 1846 the US and Mexico went to war. The war ended in 1848 – Mexico lost. This led to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848).
By its terms, Mexico gave up/sold 55 percent of the land it held before the war. This included the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming. Mexico also relinquished all claims to Texas and the Rio Grande became the border between Texas and Mexico. Purchase price: 15 million dollars...
The treaty did not include where I live, which was still owned by Mexico. In the meantime, some politicians/influencers in
Washington were considering a transcontinental railroad that would connect the southern states with California. The favored route included land that eventually became the 1854 Gadsden Purchase, a 29,670-mile territory that made up southern portions of what would become Arizona and New Mexico. Mexico, strapped for cash, sold the land for 10 million dollars. There is much more to the story and beyond the scope of this blog – think North vs South, slavery. Read more.
The Indian Nonintercourse Act
Then there was The Indian Nonintercourse Act, the collective name given to six statutes passed by the US Congress between 1790 and 1834. One of the more notable provisions was the regulation of the "inalienability of aboriginal title in the US." Aboriginal title refers to the inherent right of Indigenous peoples to their land. The land cannot be transferred, sold, or taken away without their consent. Were these acts abused? Of course! Were the indigenous peoples taken advantage of? Yes! Read more.
The recent movie, "Killers of the Flower Moon", based on the book of the same name, depicts one of many shameful chapters in our history. Whether it was oil, gold, or some other resource, the rights of the indigenous were violated again and again. Depressing.
/Indian Removal Act of 1830
And if all of that wasn't bad enough, in 1830 Congress passed The Indian Removal Act that opened the door to a series of treaties and the forced displacement of tens of thousands of Native Americans. "During the presidency of Jackson (1829–1837) and his successor Martin Van Buren (1837–1841) more than 60,000 Native Americans from at least 18 tribes were forced to move west of the Mississippi River where they were allocated new lands as part of an ethnic cleansing or genocide." Read more.
/The Doctrine of Discovery
Continuing our journey back in time... In 1823 the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the case of Johnson v. McIntosh. In 1775, Thomas Johnson bought some land in Virginia from the Piankeshaw Indian tribe under a 1763 Royal Proclamation by the King of England. When Johnson died he left the land to his heirs.
In 1818, William McIntosh purchased 11,000 acres from Congress -- land originally purchased by Johnson. Johnson’s heirs sued to recover the land. The US District Court ruled that the tribe did not have the right to convey the land to Johnson and declared the title invalid. The case was later appealed to the Supreme Court which upheld the decision. Read more.
The Court used this case to firmly establish the Doctrine of Discovery, arguing that European nations gained title to newly "discovered" lands while native inhabitants were left only with a right of occupancy, establishing the principle that ultimate title to previously Native-held lands now resided with the discovering European nations, and by extension, the United States federal government.
Huh?
I am closing this tale of woe for now. I will come back to it in a future blog.
Comments