dstaples at livingston.net
Sun Feb 1 18:26:26 EST 1998
He has a point, but my 1/16th Cherokee blood doesn't boil. NA's had no
concept of personal ownership of the earth, no concept of the whiteman's
desire to own their own piece of earth. So perhaps the British were
responsible for the ultimate loss of the land by the Native Americans by
creating the desire in the colonists.
Say, that's the ticket! The Brits did it! 8>}
Donald L Ferry wrote:
> Don Staples <dstaples at livingston.net> wrote:
> >Last week or so one of our group in the UK question what is so great
> >about personal property, and the lack of concern about personal
> >property, trespass, and criminal trespass in most countries (Empire
> >countries) outside of the US. He got me to thinking.
> >Basically, the difference is spelled out in the constitution. Personal
> >property is a guarentee that each man, regardless of status, wealth or
> >ownership, is equal before the law. No Royal rights, no housing of
> >soldiers in private homes, no confiscation of property without just and
> >rightful payment, no Broad Arrow, and no incarceration without due
> >process. All of which did not exist while a coloney under British rule.
> One of the main grievances against the crown was that they were going
> to restict the colonialists from moving in and stealing any more
> Native American Lands. After the revolution none of the leaders would
> have dared suggest any such principles
> >The fight was about freedom, the cause was oppression, the results
> >personal property rights unique in the world.
> From basically stolen land!
> The rights of the upper
> >class did not exist, in 1776. The desire for land, and the freedom that
> >comes with ownership, drove settlers ever west ward. My ancestor came
> >south, from Canada, to own land otherwise unavailable to him. No Royal
> >rights to supercede those of the individual.
> And no Native American dareth standeth in the wateth!!
My Ego Stroke: http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/
More information about the Ag-forst