Public Lands vs. King's Forest
So kiddies.
The war on private property began right after the Civil War.
Did you know that before that time, there was absolutely no concept in America about reserving land. It was all presumed to be up for grabs. That's why there is absolutely no provision in the Constitution for the Federal Government to be a landlord, or a wilderness protector, or an environmental manager. People wanted their own land, and no American would have gone for those ideas back then.
The British, however, had made treaties with the Indians regarding keeping settlers outta the Ohio Valley. During the Revolutionary War, many Indian Tribes sided with the British and made war on the colonists/rebels. For this they would be severely treated after the American rebels won the war, and England made little provision for helping their former allies. In settling with the American rebels, they ceded the indian treaty lands to the Americans, making virtually no argument for the rights of their allies.
So the Indians were relocated in large measure to make room for settlers east of the Mississippi. The Cherokee Trail of Tears was part of that whole thing.
A swath of land just north of Texas was "given" to the relocated Indians. After the Civil War, the US Govt gave financial incentives to kill the Buffalo. . . free guns, lots of ammo, to anyone who said they would shoot Buffalo. There was no argument about reducing herd size to maintain a sustainable level of Buffalo roaming the prairies. It was necessary to kill those Buffalo to bring the Plains Indians to their knees, and put them under govt control on little reservations. . . . so the rest of the land could be given to the railroads, to the mining interests, and to settlers.
Stupid laws were passed that met political needs for getting votes for re-election. Open range laws allowing cattlemen to graze the land, and conflicting Homestead laws allowing farmers to settle and prove-up on claims to land enough for a farm. Led to quite a few incidents of violence.
Then Adam Clayton Powell, a scientist with British connections, did a little boat ride down the Colorado and came back telling the Eastern elites that the western deserts would not be satisfactory for homestead. He was a "King's Forest" philosopher, and wanted to get the govt. into the management business. No Constitutional authority existed. It was expected by all the territorial governments that upon Statehood, the States would acquire title to the land, and people could come and settle on it under state law.
Later in the nineteenth century, with more British elite influence, we imported the King's Forester from India to come manage our forests, starting the National Forest Service. No Constitutional authority existed, or was ever sought, for organizing this kind of Federal management of State and territorial lands. The BLM, similarly, has no Constitutional authority. Under the Constitution, the Federal government was given specific delegated powers, and all others not specifically delegated, were reserved to the States.
Under that Constitution, the Federal Government can own no lands. They belong to the States, or to the Territories.
Under the Constitution, the Federal Government has no power to regulate or manage "Indian Reservations". But the ignorant Indians, seeing the Federal calvary around their camps. signed treaties. Many ratified later by Congress, but by a Congress that had no Constitutional authority to create little socialist colonies managed by the Federal government under the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
So,anyway, there needs to be some changes in the system we have. The idea of Federal management has always been a bad idea. It was a bad idea when the Feds were killing all the buffalo on the plains and creating socialist colonies dependent upon Federal doles and with Federal management for native Americans. The Indians were for many years not able to vote, having no US citizenship, but being deemed subjects of the BIA. It was a bad idea when the Feds turned the screws against giving title of the lands to the States, as required by the Statehood acts passed by Congress.
The argument that local political wheels will grab the lands if the States get them is a good one. The argument that major corporates. . . . oil interests, mining interests, power facilities. . . think solar, wind, hydro. . ., and land developers with financial leverage to lobby the likes of Harry Reid. . . will grab the land if the Feds keep them, is a better argument.
Few of you understand how the Federal policies for the last hundred years have been squeezing people off the land, a sort of roundup of the West, concentrating the human cattle into a few major urban centers.
Few of you have seen the maps of the plans for the land, for creating corridors of wilderness across the whole country, even in the East. UN level global plans. To do these things, it is necessary to impoverish the American people, and make it impossible to survive financially or logistically, outside of the urban centers with the Federal govt. handouts to sustain "life".
This is all mega craziness, but it's where we are going, because we have a mega crazy Federal govt. with too much power, and with all the right people making the plans. The "right people" with financial support from an international corporate elite set of "progressives".
Divide the people. Put out a bunch of rabble rousers to bang the pots and pans and make a ruckus. Give money to little retail "change agent" causes, on both sides of every issue, and do a continual media assault on the public mind, create problems and disputes, and use them to justify more Federal power.
Gotta be hundreds of people out there trying to stir us up to some kind of stupidity.
And, imo, the Bundy tribe has just the kind of stupids that it takes.
There is nothing wrong with local govt. . . . city, county, state, having zoning ordinances which regulate open lands, or land management professionals hired to take care of the environment. Under the original constitution, they have the right. People ought to do it. Nothing wrong with States having parks. The National Park system should be turned over to the States. A goodly interested public should demand all the care in management that it takes.
There is nothing wrong with states having state forests, or other state lands. That is their Constitutional prerogative. And there is nothing wrong with enough local folks interested in it all that, say, a Ken Ivory can't insinuate himself into the public decisions and reap a nice batch of development parcels. We oughtta be outraged at such things.
But what can we do about things if the Federal level is the landlord? We have no voice in our immediate State situation.
