PDA

View Full Version : History Question: What should have been done w/ slave-plantation land post-civil-war?



Wei Wu Wei
12-02-2011, 06:46 PM
During the course of the Civil War, massive quantities of land was confiscated by the military, according to laws passed at that time.

It's a popular misconception that the civil war was fought against slavery (but it is still fair to say that slavery ended because of it), but in reality it was fought against the land-owning families who dominated the political system in the southern states.

Part of the process of confiscating the land was the issue of who the land was going to be returned to afterwards.

Some people argued that it rightfully belonged to the freed slaves:
""if the strict law of right and justice is to be observed, the country around me is the entailed inheritance of the americans of african descent, purchased by the invaluable labor of our ancestors, through a life of tears and groans, under the lash and yoke of tyranny"

They argued that the land was only useful or valuable because of the labor of the slaves, who worked it, built it up, produced the crops and tended the soil. They argue that they purchased the land with their labor, which made it.

Meanwhile, the white families of plantation owners argued that it belonged to them, because their parents and grandparents held the papers to the property, the law recognized their ownership before the war, and that it was their rightful inheritance.

Ultimately, it was decided that the land belonged to the familes of previous owners.


Was this the right decision? Should it have gone to the slaves? Are both of these incorrect? What are your thoughts?

Rockntractor
12-02-2011, 06:52 PM
Go out and horse whip yourself if you have a white guilt problem, I don't have one.

JB
12-02-2011, 06:57 PM
FFS.

The land belongs to the people that own it. It does not belong to the people that work it. (Slaves in your example, wage earners otherwise).

The land is not valuable because of the people that work on it. It's value comes from its utility. If I owned land in Manhattan and turned it into a farm I would be a complete idiot. If I turn it into a parking lot, do the attendants own it? If I turn it into a theatre do the actors own it? If I turn it into a McDonalds do the cows own it?

You're commie nonsense will not fly here. Now, back to the assembly line with you.

Wei Wu Wei
12-02-2011, 07:08 PM
FFS.

The land belongs to the people that own it.

When it was confiscated, those people didn't own it anymore.

Of course, the families of the previous owners could claim inheritance rights.

Rockntractor
12-02-2011, 08:01 PM
This is a tough one Wei. I think you and every other guilt ridden liberal who is now riding the system should donate what is left of your pathetic meaningless lives to servitude to Jessie Jackson or one of the other black leaders. This is the only way you will relieve your guilt.

NJCardFan
12-02-2011, 11:55 PM
Do black owned slave-plantations count too?

Lanie
12-03-2011, 12:53 AM
Slaves were not the only people to consider, but the enemies the north was trying to make peace with. Former slave owners needed to have most to all of their land back.

I do think it would have been good to allow the slaves (not their children, but currently freed slaves) some land so they wouldn't become beggars. Just something to get them started. It's not like rental was very popular back then.

Novaheart
12-03-2011, 01:56 AM
Some people argued that it rightfully belonged to the freed slaves: ....

Some people argue a lot of things. Property is the oldest of laws. The security of property rights is arguably the philosophical center of the prosperity of the western european culture and sphere.

The constitution provided a catch 22 for the northerners who wanted to rob, rape, pillage, and steal the South after The War. You can't hold people against their will under the constitution and at the same time deny them the rights you say that come with the citizenship you insist that they have.

Slaves do not own the land. Neither do farm hands and there have been a lot more farm hands than there have been slaves. You don't earn equity after the fact; if you can get someone to contract for equity that is another matter.

NJCardFan
12-03-2011, 09:13 AM
Do black owned slave-plantations count too?

Still waiting for an answer to this question.

newshutr
12-03-2011, 09:18 AM
Wait...the 40 acres and a mule wasn't enough...???

White guilt 1 Common sense 0

Apache
12-03-2011, 11:15 AM
For those who missed it...'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

Janice
12-03-2011, 11:56 AM
Apache: Havent you heard? We now live in a post constitutional America. This is what Zippy has promised and this is why his supporters voted for him. Remember? He wants to fundamentally change our way of life. And the sheeple responded by electing him. Besides - what else can he do? His only experience is as an affirmative action community organizer who naturally pits groups of people against one another (by appealing to their base desires/emotions) to advance whatever the (his) agenda is.

The oligarchical collectivism (aka Utopia) that our brave new Leader is obviously implementing as he tosses that old useless rag formally known as the US Constitution (along with her sister doc formally known as The Bill of Rights) requires a new and transformative set of directives. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

Wake up and smell the ashes my friend.

:vader:

Novaheart
12-03-2011, 01:13 PM
I don't have a problem with a new homesteading program for those folks who feel like they have been institutionally shut out of land ownership in this country, and for others as well.

But I suspect that a lot of the "they took our land" folks don't want to do the kind of work that the land grantees of the east coast, and the homesteaders of the western expansion did.

I think some folks have a strange idea of how things came about in Virginia and the role that slaves played. They also hear the word "plantation" and have no idea that it simply means "farm" or stake. When my families arrived in Virginia, they built horrible little cabins with no windows. Some of them worked the land, all of them, men women and children. One of them ran a ship back and forth to Jamaica, and another was a merchant. It was nearly fifty years before anything which might approach a romantic fantasy of a plantation on the York River was realized. The folks who founded the stake in Virginia were largely dead by then. There were no white starched collars and Pawley's Island rocking chairs for these people; everyone on a farm has a job. Slaves allowed them to clear more land, as any workforce would have done. Free men were also working in the fields, and owners were working beside them. People need to remember first that Gone With The Wind was telling the tale of the 19th century southern version of the Roaring Twenties, and if one does his homework he will see that real estate prices were soaring before the war, much as they did and with as little reason as they did recently. People need to stop getting their understanding of history from novels and movies.

I have been to one of our "plantations" on the York River. It's a wonderful place for crops and a miserable place for people. The sheep flies there are a menace. The land floods. I have never been there in the winter, but I can tell you that that road is closed when it snows, it can't possibly be open and it's graded and graveled now. And when you get to the end of that road? A small church, a court house, and not much else.

A homesteading program would have to be carefully crafted to avoid an exodus of Americans from our coastal plain to be replaced by foreigners. A homesteading program would have to require residence on the homestead, real residence not "technically", and would have to direct a population shift to under populated areas with plenty of clean water. A homesteading program would have to be crafted to keep corporations from consolidating large tracts of sold or abandoned homesteads. I think we will run into a problem of an American people with a speculation mentality. The original homesteaders got seemingly worthless land, but they got it for "free" and made it worth something.

Some of my antecedents got land in Indiana for fighting in the War of 1812. Mind you these people had worked on family farms in the east which had been cleared and first planted a century earlier. They turned around and went home.

Apache
12-03-2011, 01:21 PM
Apache: Havent you heard? We now live in a post constitutional America. This is what Zippy has promised and this is why his supporters voted for him. Remember? He wants to fundamentally change our way of life. And the sheeple responded by electing him. Besides - what else can he do? His only experience is as an affirmative action community organizer who naturally pits groups of people against one another (by appealing to their base desires/emotions) to advance whatever the (his) agenda is.

The oligarchical collectivism (aka Utopia) that our brave new Leader is obviously implementing as he tosses that old useless rag formally known as the US Constitution (along with her sister doc formally known as The Bill of Rights) requires a new and transformative set of directives. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

Wake up and smell the ashes my friend.

:vader:

My answer was in the context the OP set forth, HISTORY. To continue holding the property would be unconstitutional and therefore illegal. During the war Lincoln suspended many freedoms, thank God they were restored.

Starbuck
12-03-2011, 01:25 PM
During the course of the Civil War, massive quantities of land was confiscated by the military, according to laws passed at that time..........

Where?
And by what means was it redistributed? Andrew Johnson reversed the 40 acres and a mule doctrine, which only affected portions of the east coast anyway, and returned the land to the previous owners.

Your exhaustive research, which I know you have done while perusing various sources of information each having a dissenting opinion, must have shown you that the law passed confiscating land in the south was passed in response to a southern law confiscating the land on union sympathizers.

And you must be aware that as of 1875, the Union no longer sent troops south to restore order.

So bring us all up to speed. Which lands were taken by the Union? And how did they redistribute, Teacher?:)

Novaheart
12-03-2011, 01:35 PM
Where?
Andrew Johnson reversed the 40 acres and a mule doctrine, which only affected portions of the east coast anyway, and returned the land to the previous owners.


That generated a cultural memory in the black population. You can find college educated black people who don't understand or don't care about the facts of what happened, and how few black people it actually affected because the narrative they have been taught is that white people didn't work, black people worked, and that everything white people have was stolen from black people. This has been an organized disinformation campaign since the early 20th century.

NJCardFan
12-03-2011, 01:53 PM
That generated a cultural memory in the black population. You can find college educated black people who don't understand or don't care about the facts of what happened, and how few black people it actually affected because the narrative they have been taught is that white people didn't work, black people worked, and that everything white people have was stolen from black people. This has been an organized disinformation campaign since the early 20th century.

Which is why I find it comical that my question concerning black plantation/slave owners is being ignored. It's a part of Southern history people, especially on the left like to believe never happened.

Novaheart
12-03-2011, 02:32 PM
Which is why I find it comical that my question concerning black plantation/slave owners is being ignored. It's a part of Southern history people, especially on the left like to believe never happened.

I think the "black plantation owners" type questions or comments are ignored because while it may have happened it was an anomaly. Certainly had slavery continued we would have ended up with something more akin to Hispañola, with a quadroon or octoroon class more formalized than the one already existing in Louisiana. One thing is certain, we could not have continued as a single nation with a line of demarcation between slave states and free states, due to the property laws.

Personally, I think the whole civil war was a conspiracy of American robber barons and London bankers to play both sides against the middle and come out owning everything.

Starbuck
12-03-2011, 03:21 PM
That generated a cultural memory in the black population. You can find college educated black people who don't understand or don't care about the facts of what happened, and how few black people it actually affected because the narrative they have been taught is that white people didn't work, black people worked, and that everything white people have was stolen from black people. This has been an organized disinformation campaign since the early 20th century.

Well stated, I believe. The nexus of my post, of course, is that wholesale confiscation of southern plantations and a redistribution to former slaves never happened.

In Mississippi there was an event wherein the former slaves killed their former master because they thought the plantation belonged to them, the former slaves. But that sort of thing was rare. Mostly, the poor, uneducated slaves were set free to wander, and they suffered greatly for many, many years. Understand, I am not saying the slaves should not have been freed, I am pointing out that their freedom came with a price tag - one that is worth learning about and discussing.

Apocalypse
12-03-2011, 05:15 PM
According to the research, one of Obama's great-great-great-great grandfathers, George Washington (http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/politics/george-washington-PEHST002264.topic) Overall, owned two slaves who were recorded in the 1850 census in Nelson County (http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/us/virginia/nelson-county-PLGEO100101182000000.topic), Ky. The same records show that one of Obama's great-great-great-great-great-grandmothers, Mary Duvall, also owned two slaves.

The Sun retraced much of Reitwiesner's work, using census information available on the Web site ancestry.com and documents retrieved by the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives, among other sources. The records show that Overall, then 30, owned a 15-year-old black female and a 25-year-old black male, while Mary Duvall, his mother-in-law, owned a 60-year-old black man and a 58-year-old black woman. (Slaves are listed in the 1850 census by owner, age, "sex," and "colour," not by name.)

An Obama spokesman did not dispute the information and said that the senator's ancestors "are representative of America."

Bailey
12-03-2011, 06:32 PM
Why does WE WE start these threads then ups and disappears?

NJCardFan
12-03-2011, 07:21 PM
Why does WE WE start these threads then ups and disappears?

Are you telling me that you never knew wee wee was a swooper and pooper?

Starbuck
12-03-2011, 07:23 PM
Why does WE WE start these threads then ups and disappears?

THESE...are puzzlements!:)

In this case I believe it is because he revealed a stunning lack of knowledge about the subject he chose. His opening statement [During the course of the Civil War, massive quantities of land was confiscated by the military, according to laws passed at that time.] was as far off base as I have ever known anyone to be, and I suppose the embarrassment of finding himself with no clothes on was just too much.:D

Wei Wu Wei
12-03-2011, 07:25 PM
Do black owned slave-plantations count too?

Yes

Wei Wu Wei
12-03-2011, 07:36 PM
Where?
And by what means was it redistributed? Andrew Johnson reversed the 40 acres and a mule doctrine, which only affected portions of the east coast anyway, and returned the land to the previous owners.

Your exhaustive research, which I know you have done while perusing various sources of information each having a dissenting opinion, must have shown you that the law passed confiscating land in the south was passed in response to a southern law confiscating the land on union sympathizers.

And you must be aware that as of 1875, the Union no longer sent troops south to restore order.

So bring us all up to speed. Which lands were taken by the Union? And how did they redistribute, Teacher?:)

The Confiscation Acts in 1861 and 1862. They allowed for the freeing of slaves as "confiscated property" as well as a seizure of land, stocks, estates, credits, and so on.

Wei Wu Wei
12-03-2011, 07:38 PM
Some people argue a lot of things. Property is the oldest of laws. The security of property rights is arguably the philosophical center of the prosperity of the western european culture and sphere.

Do property rights always hold supremely above all else?

If we accept that property rights are supreme, then are we to say that slave-owners were perfectly justified in beating/maiming/murdering their slaves because those slaves were, according to the law, the property of those owners?

NJCardFan
12-03-2011, 08:10 PM
Do property rights always hold supremely above all else?

If we accept that property rights are supreme, then are we to say that slave-owners were perfectly justified in beating/maiming/murdering their slaves because those slaves were, according to the law, the property of those owners?

Um, what exactly do we do about it today?

Starbuck
12-04-2011, 12:38 AM
The Confiscation Acts in 1861 and 1862. They allowed for the freeing of slaves as "confiscated property" as well as a seizure of land, stocks, estates, credits, and so on.

......Johnson's attorney general, James Speed, took a narrow view of confiscation and by June of 1866 he ordered a halt to any more seizures. President Johnson ordered that land seized by the federal government under the Confiscation Acts, land to which the United States had title, should be returned to its owners, unless it had already been sold to a third party. All told, total proceeds from confiscation by 1867 amounted to roughly $300,000.....
http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/first-second-confiscation-acts

As already stated, there was no "massive quantity of land" involved. So the question you asked, "What Should have been done with slave-plantation land post-civil-war" has been answered. It was given back to its original owners, if, indeed, it had actually been taken from them.

You are evidently under the mistaken belief that the U.S. seized and retained real property during the Civil War. They did seize some, but retained none. The Confederacy also seized some from Yankee sympathizers. I don't know how much or what became of it.

Apache
12-04-2011, 02:24 AM
Yes

What? my answers don't fit your agenda? Even though correct?



Truth hurts huh?

txradioguy
12-04-2011, 03:28 AM
Still waiting for an answer to this question.

What about slave owning...plantation owning American Indians?

Are they going to be held accountable for transgressions againt blacks as well?

What about the ruling by the IRRC Cherokee nation recently that cut blacks who have claims to tribal lands OFF of the tribal rolls?

The only thing worse than someone suffering from white guilt is someone who is afflicted with an ignorance of history at the same time.

Wee Wee has both in spades.

txradioguy
12-04-2011, 03:35 AM
Um, what exactly do we do about it today?

Wee Wee is engaging in classic socialist propaganda about the eeeeeeevils of private property rights.

Private property rights is one of the most imports ts rights we as Americans have. It's what seperated us from most other nations and it's the bane to those that want to turn us into a social utopia.

If you can use white guilt to convince someone that owning 100 acres or your own house on a tract of land is no different than owning a plantation full of slaves in 1850 you can get them to surrender just about any right they have.

Novaheart
12-04-2011, 11:15 AM
Do property rights always hold supremely above all else?


As much as possible.




If we accept that property rights are supreme, then are we to say that slave-owners were perfectly justified in beating/maiming/murdering their slaves because those slaves were, according to the law, the property of those owners?

There were rules then as there are now. The rules have changed in regard to slaves and slavery, as well as things like corporal punishment, domestic violence, child labor, animal abuse, humane treatment of farm animals, legal treatment of labor, etc... I'm a tad disappointed that you would attempt to employ the tactic of contrasting a single aspect of antebellum life and law to a contemporary understanding of justice. I mostly see this in the Len Jeffries crowd, who whine about slavery in colonial America and the United States while completely ignoring the context of the times, and of course the fact that America was not nearly the last to end slavery within its borders.

AmPat
12-04-2011, 12:03 PM
History Question: What should have been done w/ slave-plantation land post-civil-war?
History Answer: It should never have been illegally confiscated in the first place. Second, give back the illegally confiscated land back to the rightful owners.

If the slaves felt that they got a bad shake then sorry, the Indians did too. Life ain't fair, get over it.:cool:

NJCardFan
12-04-2011, 12:45 PM
Funny how you never hear if the black community should start reparations against West African nations. It isn't like Europeans hopped on to Africa and started rounding up potential slaves. They had plenty of help from the tribes themselves.

Rockntractor
12-04-2011, 12:59 PM
I want reparations from the communists for all the damage they have done to the world.

Starbuck
12-04-2011, 01:55 PM
I want reparations from the communists for all the damage they have done to the world.

I want reparations from Wee Wee far all the damage he has done by propagating myths disguised as history to young mind who only wanted to learn.

AmPat
12-04-2011, 02:40 PM
Funny how you never hear if the black community should start reparations against West African nations. It isn't like Europeans hopped on to Africa and started rounding up potential slaves. They had plenty of help from the tribes themselves.

That's why I laugh when I see all those "African dress" stores selling clothing and accessories from Africa. How do the people who buy that junk know they aren't wearing the clothing, dress, and colors of the very tribe that enslaved their ancestors?:eek:

Novaheart
12-04-2011, 03:51 PM
That's why I laugh when I see all those "African dress" stores selling clothing and accessories from Africa. How do the people who buy that junk know they aren't wearing the clothing, dress, and colors of the very tribe that enslaved their ancestors?:eek:

I'll have to disagree with you on this one. If you go to a Ren Faire you would see all manner of people dressed as lords, ladies, knights, executioners, tradesmen, etc... all based either on their simple desire for a character, or due to what is often a loose understanding of ancestry. Yes, most WASPS can trace their ancestry to lords, ladies, and knights with some reliability, but our ancestors are a broader group than our genealogical charts hold. Many of our ancestors were peasants tied to the land, and before that perhaps slaves or a slave equivalent to the various invaders and conquerors.

I reserve the right to dress up as Tariq, Malcolm, Edward, Sir Lancelot, Igor Thorresson, etc... even if the one may have killed, enslaved, or oppressed the other along the way.

As I said at Megabank, I have no problem with Taneesha coming to work dressed as a princess of Mali Empire, as long as no one minds if I dress up as King Charles or Louis XIV.

AmPat
12-04-2011, 04:03 PM
I'll have to disagree with you on this one. If you go to a Ren Faire you would see all manner of people dressed as lords, ladies, knights, executioners, tradesmen, etc... all based either on their simple desire for a character, or due to what is often a loose understanding of ancestry. Yes, most WASPS can trace their ancestry to lords, ladies, and knights with some reliability, but our ancestors are a broader group than our genealogical charts hold. Many of our ancestors were peasants tied to the land, and before that perhaps slaves or a slave equivalent to the various invaders and conquerors.

I reserve the right to dress up as Tariq, Malcolm, Edward, Sir Lancelot, Igor Thorresson, etc... even if the one may have killed, enslaved, or oppressed the other along the way.

As I said at Megabank, I have no problem with Taneesha coming to work dressed as a princess of Mali Empire, as long as no one minds if I dress up as King Charles or Louis XIV.

That would be funny,,,,,,,up until the pink slip.

Adam Wood
12-05-2011, 03:55 PM
I'm still waiting on my reparations from the Italian government.

Given the state of their economy, I'm not holding my breath.

DumbAss Tanker
12-05-2011, 07:29 PM
We had the same Fifth Amendment in 1865 as we do now. It prohibits the government from arbitrarily taking property without due process of law. They could have taken it under eminent domain for government use, paying for it of course, but it is only the modern 'Enlightened' Libs on the Supreme Court (Plus one guy who has overstayed his capability to reason clearly) who think it's right for the government to use that power just to turn it over to other private parties.

The logic in the Keloe decision, however, would tend to militate for leaving it in the hands of the plantation owners anyway, since even back then, it was far more likely to achieve higher productivity (And hence generate tax revenues) under a single owner than if it was cut up into hundreds of subsistence-farm parcels for ex-slaves.

Starbuck
12-05-2011, 11:47 PM
We had the same Fifth Amendment in 1865 as we do now. It prohibits the government from arbitrarily taking property without due process of law. They could have taken it under eminent domain for government use, paying for it of course, but it is only the modern 'Enlightened' Libs on the Supreme Court (Plus one guy who has overstayed his capability to reason clearly) who think it's right for the government to use that power just to turn it over to other private parties.

The logic in the Keloe decision, however, would tend to militate for leaving it in the hands of the plantation owners anyway, since even back then, it was far more likely to achieve higher productivity (And hence generate tax revenues) under a single owner than if it was cut up into hundreds of subsistence-farm parcels for ex-slaves.

All probably true, but no one can picture the government making a decision based on what is most productive, and even if they did try to make a productivity-based decision, they'd screw it up.

NJCardFan
12-05-2011, 11:51 PM
We had the same Fifth Amendment in 1865 as we do now. It prohibits the government from arbitrarily taking property without due process of law. They could have taken it under eminent domain for government use, paying for it of course, but it is only the modern 'Enlightened' Libs on the Supreme Court (Plus one guy who has overstayed his capability to reason clearly) who think it's right for the government to use that power just to turn it over to other private parties.

The logic in the Keloe decision, however, would tend to militate for leaving it in the hands of the plantation owners anyway, since even back then, it was far more likely to achieve higher productivity (And hence generate tax revenues) under a single owner than if it was cut up into hundreds of subsistence-farm parcels for ex-slaves.
The funny thing is that the Kelo land is now an empty lot. The government stole the land from the owners for nothing.

Odysseus
12-06-2011, 09:28 AM
I'm still waiting on my reparations from the Italian government.

Given the state of their economy, I'm not holding my breath.

Hey, Egypt owes me for the Hebrew captivity. My ancestors built those pyramids and I want a piece of the tourist trade! :mad::rolleyes:

Now, a serious answer. Arlington National Cemetery started out as the estate of the Robert E. Lee family. The feds acquired it after forcing a tax lien, but they would not accept a payment that was not made in person by the Lee family, basically demanding that Mary Lee cross the Confederate and Union lines in order to pay the tax. A family friend attempted to make the payment but the assessors refused to accept it. Then, the feds began using the site as a cemetery. After the war, Custis Lee, the son of Robert and Mary Lee, sued the government for the return of the estate. It went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the tax law that stipulated the presence of the land owner was a deliberately onerous requirement whose sole purpose was to prevent compliance with the tax, and ruled in favor of Lee. The government compensated him for the value of the estate.

Like the return of the other confiscated properties, this demonstrated several critical factors that elude leftists: First, it demonstrated that that America is ruled by laws, and that those laws must be applied evenly, so that even the son of the man who led the the largest force in the most bloody insurrection in American history would be treated no differently than any other citizen. It also established that the rule of law was more important than any desired result.

This demonstrates a fundamental difference between leftists and everyone else. Socialists, communists or progressives seek a defined end, and then rewrite the laws or reinterpret them to fit that end. The result is that there is no guarantee of legal protections, and the legal landscape becomes a quagmire in which who you are becomes more important than the law. Wei doesn't get that, or doesn't care.

DumbAss Tanker
12-06-2011, 10:50 AM
The funny thing is that the Kelo land is now an empty lot. The government stole the land from the owners for nothing.


Yeah...no solace to the property owners whose homes were legally stolen from them, but still a well-deserved bitschslap from fate to the rotten bastards running that city.

Odysseus
12-06-2011, 01:12 PM
Yeah...no solace to the property owners whose homes were legally stolen from them, but still a well-deserved bitschslap from fate to the rotten bastards running that city.

Yeah, except that it didn't cost them a whole lot. OTOH, now that they have failed to provide any "economic benefit" as defined by Kelo, I wonder if the people who lost their homes have a cause of action against the city for failing to produce the promised tax revenue, which was the motivation for the taking of their homes.

Starbuck
12-06-2011, 02:03 PM
I'm guessing that there is no recourse. In Waxahatchie, TX., land was taken in order to build the super collider. They actually started the project and then canceled it the way they do nuclear reactors. Bummer. But no one got their land back.

After the cancellation the land was deeded back to the county in TX, who then had gobs of dug up land and miles of tunnels, non of which was productive.:confused:

DumbAss Tanker
12-06-2011, 03:17 PM
Yeah, except that it didn't cost them a whole lot. OTOH, now that they have failed to provide any "economic benefit" as defined by Kelo, I wonder if the people who lost their homes have a cause of action against the city for failing to produce the promised tax revenue, which was the motivation for the taking of their homes.

In terms of legally stealing that bit of property itself you are correct, but I there is also the huge financial and opportunity cost of litigating a case all the way to a contested Supreme Court decision, and the fact that the total acquision cost of all the properties and rights for the abandoned project is now money down a rat-hole.

NJCardFan
12-06-2011, 10:39 PM
In terms of legally stealing that bit of property itself you are correct, but I there is also the huge financial and opportunity cost of litigating a case all the way to a contested Supreme Court decision, and the fact that the total acquision cost of all the properties and rights for the abandoned project is now money down a rat-hole.

In other words, you're typical government operation.