Hacker News Reader

Comment by aphextron | Hacker News Reader

>Was it really just doling it out to farmers who have since sold it?

Yes. For much of America's history, you could literally get in a wagon, head out west somewhere, plant a flag, and the land was yours. This was true all the way to 1976.

"In all, more than 270 million acres of public land, or nearly 10% of the total area of the U.S., was given away free to 1.6 million homesteaders; most of the homesteads were west of the Mississippi River."

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts

But that's not the whole story. Another 10% of the entire US land mass (~200,000,000 acres) was granted free of charge to various railroad companies[0], many of which are still the largest private landowners in their respective states.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railroad_Acts

View on HN

Not quite. The railroads were given the land at a price - they had to carry mail for the government at less-than-market rates. That continued until World War II. If you consider that many of the land grants were around 1870, that was 70 to 75 years of carrying the mail at less than cost. Then, during WWII, the federal government was desperate for revenue, and they let the railroads buy their way out of the existing deal.

The land wasn't just "granted free" to the railroads.

In addition, the land given to railroads was checkerboarded, meaning the they were given every other 640-acre section along the railway extending a few miles on either side.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboarding_(land)

That's damn fascinating. Thanks!

> For much of America's history, you could literally get in a wagon, head out west somewhere, plant a flag, and the land was yours.

You also had to band together with your fellow settlers into armed militias to kill the people whose land you were squatting.

Those are the same militias which are protected in the second amendment. Their original purpose was "killing indians". The secondary purpose was to catch escaped slaves.

It's always fun to remember where our real estate industry comes from. It's also interesting to see the hidden connections between America's passion for home ownership, its obsession with guns, and its racism.

Those are the same militias which are protected in the second amendment. Their original purpose was "killing indians".

False. The original purpose, predating even the government and the constitution, was to fight off armed oppression in the form of Hessian mercenaries and British soldiers.

It's also interesting to see the hidden connections between America's passion for home ownership, its obsession with guns, and its racism.

Gun Control was partly started by racist southern politicians who were horrified by the thought that black citizens would have the right to own firearms.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/10/gun-contr...

> False. The original purpose, predating even the government and the constitution, was to fight off armed oppression in the form of Hessian mercenaries and British soldiers.

You do realize that colonial militias existed for over a century before the war for independence with the British Empire? What "armed oppression" were they fighting exactly?

You do realize that multiple native groups obtained their land through war and what at times could be called extermination?

The Comanche are but one example. There are very few groups in history that ended up where they were peacefully. That's unfortunate, but depicting the European settlers as land-hungry thieving murderers should take into account that's what everyone did.

Here's an account of the Fort Parker massacre, which wasn't uncommon on the frontier:

Benjamin Parker was killed, and before the fort's gates could be closed, the raiders rushed inside. Silas Parker, who was outside with his brother, was killed before he was able to get back inside the gate. Samuel Frost and his son Robert were killed inside the gate, as they attempted to flee. John Parker's genitals were cut off and he was then scalped. His wife came out of the woods when she saw his torture and was captured.[5] Lucy Parker and her youngest two children were initially captured but were rescued by Luther Plummer as he ran up to the fort from the fields. Her two oldest children, however, along with Luther's wife (Rachel) and son, and Elizabeth Kellogg were successfully kidnapped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Parker_massacre

Did those settlers deserve that? You can argue it, but this is a complex topic. Maybe some of those militias existed for good reasons, like if they didn't, people would get murdered by raiding parties, as they have in every locale in history.

I think I got whiplash from that topic change you did there.

You mind explaining?

You: militias were originally to fight off Hessian and British soldiers of oppression

Other poster: no, they were started well before that

You: Have you HEARD how savage those Indians were though??!?!

The other poster said that militas were made to "kill Indians". I'm saying that it is very likely were designed to defend against them. Do we deny that many of these societies were militaristic tribes? Do we deny history?

Besides the fact that the colonial militias had military use because Britain wasn't the only imperial power in the region. Washington, for example, led a Virginia militia against the French way before the Revolutionary War.

Is that really that off topic?

Tell me more about the Hessian soldiers you were talking about.

Is there a point that you're trying to make? As a reminder you're responding to a message about the historical connection between gun ownership, home ownership and racism in the USA. I don't see anything in your message that's relevant to that, except maybe to confirm that colonial militias were created to "kill indians", and that the settlers were squatting on indigenous land.

What I'm trying to say is you have a very one-sided view of history. You've already decided that the purpose of militias was to "kill Indians". You didn't back that up at all.

Militias had offensive/defensive use against other colonial powers, but they also could have (but didn't always have) purely defensive use against native raids, which were not uncommon (nor were they the other way around).

You've also decided that that all land was "indigenous" when nobody has ever owned land, it's always been what group takes it. The natives often took the land from each other. You've decided that's different from European settlers doing it purely based on race. You're making a racial distinction without admitting this is just what people do. The plains weren't Apache land in 1500, why was it their land 200 years later after they'd kicked out other natives? Why was Mexico City Aztec land when they killed off the groups which originally owned it? Much land was loosely populated anyway, both groups could have coexisted but they did not. Killing "squatters" is just justifying the same militarism you despise.

Do you see what I'm trying to say? I don't deny atrocities against the natives, those are well-documented, but if you're you're going to talk about history, talk about how it was, not about how a 21st century view of race/society sees it. It's dishonest to those people and who they were.

> What I'm trying to say is you have a very one-sided view of history.

What do you mean by "one-sided"? What are the "sides" involved here?

> You've already decided that the purpose of militias was to "kill Indians". You didn't back that up at all.

Why would I have to back it up? It's a very basic fact which nobody is disputing, not even you. You feel that the killing of natives by militias was justified at least in part in self-defense, you have inferred from my choice of words that I disagree with you, and you're unhappy about that.

But you haven't proposed an alternative explanation to whom the militias were meant to kill (if not native americans, who? Other settlers? Bears?) or why (if not because the settlers were squatting on indigenous land, then why? Family feud? Religion? The color of their hats?) If you do have an alternative explanation for the existence of militias, now would be a good time to make your case.

You do realize that colonial militias existed for over a century before the war for independence with the British Empire?

Remember that you are the one who framed the discussion into the 2nd amendment context in the first place. The reason why the 2nd amendment is there is primarily to properly adjust the balance of power between the governed and the government, as is the rest of the Bill of Rights.

> The reason why the 2nd amendment is there is primarily to properly adjust the balance of power between the governed and the government, as is the rest of the Bill of Rights.

That's probably true. Also very abstract, and not in contradiction with anything I said. What's the point you're trying to make exactly?

> Gun Control was partly started by racist southern politicians who were horrified by the thought that black citizens would have the right to own firearms.

Then again guns were needed to catch escaped slaves and to keep control over large black population ... and south pre-civil war had manly man dueling culture ... it was complicated and very situational when guns were good and when they were bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com