3 ms·
The US absolutely respects agreements prior to land becoming territory of the United States. Of course, it all depends on the agreement, so I have no idea if t
by refurb 4y ago
The US absolutely respects agreements prior to land becoming territory of the United States. Of course, it all depends on the agreement, so I have no idea if the Harvard story is correct.
But a good example are the ranchos in California. They were land grants by the Mexican government when it was Mexican territory. When the US acquired California after the Mexican-American war, the agreement was all such land grants were deemed valid going forward.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranchos_of_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranchos_of_California
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago> The US absolutely respects agreements prior to land becoming territory of the United States The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo has not been fully followed, even according to the US government. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-04-59 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-04-59
- refurb 4y agoThose claims are about how the original land grants were respected, not if they were respected. That may sound like mincing words, but it's an important distinction.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y agoFrom the GAO abstract: > identifies and assesses concerns regarding acreage transferred voluntarily or involuntarily after the confirmation procedures were completed "Involuntary transfer" is not what most people would describe as "respecting existing land grants".
- refurb 4y agoRead the details, it's because proof of land grants wasn't exactly perfect. Lots of claims but sometimes no concrete proof. The article calls out instances of fraud. I wouldn't say a few exceptions where challenges were faced mean the US didn't respect land grants. The paper itself says the vast majority has no issues.