Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
The difference is that those ranchers would have had a recognized title to the lands they were on, the natives would not. I'm not saying that's right, but the fact is that the law at the time only respect certain types of claims, namely those that followed the protocols set out by the government.
I'm not sure what wouldn't have been legal under that regime. I'm talking about the expulsion of natives by government forces under government order.
|
Yeah, unfortunately I don't know enough about American law to really go that far back. I suppose it would also depend on how much land was appropriated pre and post constitution, with consideration to state status as well. The argument could be made, as it was in Canada, that native title could be assumed under common law amongst a tribe, regardless of official title with the government, as the idea of legally documented title is obviously very culturally specific. Again though, I think Canada is less rigid in these areas than the U.S.