Why Should Government Take Our Land

Decent Essays
Why should the government take our land? The United States government should not take our land. The government should not take our land because the land is not the government's land, the land could have been in the family for a century, and that piece of land could be a farmer’s land and that may be his lifestyle. First, the land is not the United States government. If an owner buys a piece of land, then that is the owner’s property. Plus if the land is the government, then why did the people pay for it? It is not okay to take away people’s land. The government should not take away the people’s land. Second, the land could have been in the family for centuries. That piece of land could have been in the family for centuries, so they should

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Andrew Jackson said he felt sad the Natives disappeared but he feels it’s for the better. Jackson thought the land should not be occupied by Native Americans and should instead be given to Americans for they will be much happier. He thought the old land was a “a country covered with forests and occupied by a few thousand savages” before the Americans took over. Native Americans, however, hated these relocations which caused them many…

    • 496 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Trail Of Tears Dbq Essay

    • 666 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Based on the documents that I studied and the text of the U.S. Constitution, I disagree with the statement that the U.S. government was justified in forcing the Indian tribes east of the Mississippi River to leave their homeland to move to the Oklahoma territory. I believe that the Natives were cheated out of their land Document One summarizes the uphill battle between the Natives and the settlers. According to Document One, "Land greed was a big reason for the federal government's position on Indian removal." Also, "In 1802, the Georgia legislature signed a compact giving the federal government all of her claims to western lands in exchange for the government's pledge to extinguish all Indian titles to land within the state." and "… the…

    • 666 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    As is today, unfortunatley a politiians general belief may conflict with what they "know" is the right thing to do in the situation. Take the Louisiana Purchase by Jefferson. We see earlier that unless the Constitution stated a power was specifically granted to the federal government, it would be transfered to the state. However, at this time, Jefferson as president, was altering treaties and ultimately buying land when he himself admitted it was unconstitutional in private. Jefferson believed in the land so much that he knew his contradiction would not be as powerful as the production of the newly acquired…

    • 602 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Dear editor, I think that the United States ,Thomas Jefferson, and Congress should buy the Louisiana territory because not only would we get New Orleans and we would get the Louisiana territory which has the Mississippi River. First of all if we buy the Louisiana Territory we would have way more land. It says that there is over half of the U.S. in this purchase. Why would Thomas Jefferson not buy it, who cares if it's not constitutional! I Shirley wouldn't.…

    • 359 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    However, in the Berman case, this was redefined. The court ruled that any property could be taken for not only for “public use”, but also for “public purpose”. The court did not only redefine the Takings Clause, but they also ruled that the US government was allowed to transfer properties between two private properties as long as the other private party is involved in a redevelopment plan that has a communal purpose. With past and future lawsuits, the government’s security in eminent domain may not be as…

    • 747 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The United States of America is a large and populous country with over 300 million people spread out among the states, but it wasn’t always that way. In the 1830s the U.S government was struggling to expand its nation into the frontier. As a result, many people including Andrew Jackson and even Indians like Elias Boudinot found it necessary to move and push the Native Americans west. Jackson strongly believed that the Native Americans should move further west because it will save them from annihilation and will allow white settlers to use and find new land expanding America’s growth (Doc A). This shows how Jackson supported the native American removal because it benefited both people, the Native Americans and white settlers.…

    • 342 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Cherokee Indians own that land legally and technically the citizens of Georgia cannot take the land away from them because they own it. The Cherokees had to sign many treaties in order to claim the land as theirs. Years before the removal act, treaties with the United States government granted these lands to them. The Cherokee Indians don't stay on their land for long.…

    • 536 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Essay On Yakama Wars

    • 797 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The Yakama Wars Envision a stranger barging into the house your family has owned for hundreds of years. He demands to buy it, but you refuse. His desire to have your house is uncontrollable and in order to get the house he kills you, your family, and all of your friends. This wouldn’t be fair or ethical, but is much like what happened during the early years of the American settlement westward. Unlike the scenario of your house being taken, there were more events leading up to the Yakama Wars than just one.…

    • 797 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Thomas Jefferson was a strict constructionist which means that every word in the constitution is to be taken at face value and nothing is to be assumed, or more simply put, if it is not in the constitution than the government cannot do it. He attests this in a letter he sent to a senator in 1820 on the matter of the Missouri compromise. His answer to the question can be summarized by the last sentence of the second paragraph of this letter, "This certainly is the exclusive right of every state, which nothing in the Constitution has taken from them and given to the general government." Although seventeen years prior in the midst of his first term as president of the United States he made the biggest purchase of land in American history the Louisiana purchase. When he knew well that there was nothing in the constitution that gave him the right to buy new territory, explore it, and even go beyond the borders of the land.…

    • 1033 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Eminent Domain Essay

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages

    These beliefs led to the writing of the Declaration of Independence and in turn the Constitution to lay out grievances committed by the king and what the new government was allowed to do respectively. The Fifth Amendment states “… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” (U.S. Constitution). Judicial precedent has determined “public use” to be anything that benefits the common good. Additionally, just compensation is considered to mean fair market value. However, the problem arises when the party seizing the property is also the one to determine what a fair price to pay is.…

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    To get to were we are today the United States had to expanded on lands that wasn't exactly theirs. This is know as manifest destiny. They bought the land to say it was their that that was not the end of manifest destiny. In the Us during the time 1800 Manifest destiny is greed.…

    • 758 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    After the Revolution happened large amounts of the Indian tribes’ land were put up for sale with the exception of the Chickasaws because they made a treaty that made sure they got to keep their land. Indian removal was the cause of the Jacksonian democracy which said that there is no such thing as free land, there is an elimination of property qualification which between 1790 in 1856 all property qualifications were dropped. Families practically had no other choice but to leave their…

    • 1264 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Since the first establishment of the United States government, Americans has been brainwashed to believe the power to do what is good for the people. A large percentage of Americans would agree that the government have control of everyone’s life. Some people would ask the numerous questions that would make people really think. What kind of things should the government have control over? How much authority should the government be given?…

    • 1317 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Manifest Destiny is the name for the American expansion that occurred in the 1800s. It was an imperialistic act. The exact definition of imperialism is a policy of extending a country 's power and influence through diplomacy or military force. The United States was behaving like an imperial power through its expansion westward. There were already people living in those areas.…

    • 799 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In the Native American society, personal goods such as tools were considered yours only if you created them yourself. Even if something was owned it was considered readily replaceable. Despite their easy nature of personal goods, land was different. The land which crops were grown and the area their wigwams stood on were, in their minds, possessed by them in spite of the fact that they moved every couple of months to a new area. They also believed that their main hunting and gathering lands were theirs to claim.…

    • 1758 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays