A court case you’ve never heard of, that is now illegal to discuss in Florida, that denied property rights of land purchased at the dawn of the United States.
With Florida having banned any education implying the US was founded as a racist nation (even thought it was), and also having passed another law saying Colleges may not prevent any teachings or views that are protected by the 1st Amendment (twobuttonsmeme.jpg), I’ve been made aware of an interesting case relating to the earliest days of the US.
Johnson v M’Intosh was incidentally a decisions that decreed that only the State may purchase land from the Native Americans, not individuals.
However in it’s decision an text it reveals much more, and may help partially explain why the study of such cases under the banner of Critical Legal Theory (an anti-marxist methodology that considers how and what language and law is both taught and applied) is being so vehemently opposed by those with misguided views of what both of those things are who just so happen to overlap a lot with groups that benefit from the current legal framework and insist the US doesn’t have a racist past that reflects to modern days.
It reveals how the underlying sentiments behind the US State controlling land and Lockean Homesteading were based in Euro-Christian Supremacy. I’d give the case a read and consider listening to Opening Arguments episodes 501 and 502 (transcripts to be available soon on their website).
On the discovery of this immense continent, the great nations of Europe were eager to appropriate to themselves so much of it as they could respectively acquire. Its vast extent offered an ample field to the ambition and enterprise of all; and the character and religion of its inhabitants afforded an apology for considering them as a people over whom the superior genius of Europe might claim an ascendency. The potentates of the old world found no difficulty in convincing themselves that they made ample compensation to the inhabitants of the new, by bestowing on them civilization and Christianity, in exchange for unlimited independence.
In the establishment of these relations, the rights of the original inhabitants were, in no instance, entirely disregarded; but were necessarily, to a considerable extent, impaired. They were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own discretion; but their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished, and their power to dispose of the soil at their own will, to whomsoever they pleased, was denied by the original fundamental principle, that discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it.
While the different nations of Europe respected the right of the natives, as occupants, they asserted the ultimate dominion to be in themselves; and claimed and exercised, as a consequence of this ultimate dominion, a power to grant the soil, while yet in possession of the natives.
However extravagant the pretension of converting the discovery of an inhabited country into conquest may appear; if the principle has been asserted in the first instance, and afterwards sustained; if a country has been acquired and held under it; if the property of the great mass of the community originates in it, it becomes the law of the land, and cannot be questioned. So, too, with respect to the concomitant principle, that the Indian inhabitants are to be considered merely as occupants, to be protected, indeed, while in peace, in the possession of their lands, but to be deemed incapable of transferring the absolute title to others. However this restriction may be opposed to natural right, and to the usages of civilized nations, yet, if it be indispensable to that system under which the country has been settled, and be adapted to the actual condition of the two people, it may, perhaps, be supported by reason, and certainly cannot be rejected by Courts of justice.
Article from r/Libertarian: For a Free Society