Did Canadians steal land from natives?
No, but…First, “Canada” as a political entity is relatively recent. We’ve been a country since 1867, and a colony of England from 1713 or 1763, depending on how you count.Initially, most of the Europeans who were here were not at all interested in the land. They just wanted timber and furs. In fact, at that time “Canada” (and a big chunk of the present-day USA, as well) was in fact managed not by a political entity, but by a commercial concern: The Hudsons Bay Company.For the most part (and by that I mean “After 1800 or so”) when Canada wanted to actually take land for expansion, it did so by way of “treaties”, which were essentially contracts between various aboriginal nations and the Crown.Now, this was absolutely legal, and there was very little (maybe none) of the out-and-out plunder and warfare seen in the USA.But at the same time, it doesn’t take much to see that the negotiating power of the Crown and of a relatively isolated First Nation is… asymmetrical. And when you add that to the fact that the Crown (and the Canadian Federal government, which assumed the obligations of the Crown) have not exactly been diligent in keeping up their end of the contracts.So, when you look at the end result, it can look a whole lot like Canadians stole land from First Nations, even though it’s not exactly, technically true.By the way, as an aside, it is instructive to look at the experiences of the Inuit. They had the enviable position of not having an government interference at all until after 1900 or so, and really they didn’t start to get considered “Canadian” until around World War 2 — so within living memory.When the Federal government started to just assume the Inuit were Canadian, and that the land belonged to Canada, the Inuit pushed back, partially because they saw what had happened to the Indians.I’ll just say that the treaties negotiated by the Inuit are waaaaayyyyy better than the ones negotiated by the Indians.BTW, read David Moe's answer to Did Canadians steal land from natives? because that has even more detail.See also Scott Welch's answer to Why don't the Eskimos declare independence?
What makes it acceptable for government officials to steal from taxpayers, but not for the public to do it to each other?
It is my sense that in tradition "stealing" referred to taking goods from your cohort, your friends. Stealing from outsiders was often totally acceptable. I just finished reading a book about T.E. Lawrence ("of Arabia") and it describes the greatest hero of that region as being Auda — the most successful thief of all time in Arabia. Auda (played brilliantly by Anthony Quinn in the movie) kept his list of friends very small so that there were more people to steal from.Much of the history of the world consists of stealing from adversaries. Stealing from clan members was strictly forbidden because it weakens the clan. Invading other countries solely to gain their wealth was such common practice from the 1700s to mid 1900s that making a list of them in a Quora note would take up more space than I want to give. I recently read the book "Catherine the Great" by Robert Massie, and it gives a wonderful description of the rapaciousness of the numerous countries and kingdoms that made up Europe and eastern Asia. One of the great aspects of the modern world is how we have extended the clan. Now it is not only people closely related to us, but people who live within the same country. In fact, the modern secular religion is that our clan now extends to all of humanity, and some would extend it farther. Thus we must not steal from anyone.So, from a very practical position, we outlaw stealing because it hurts our community, and our community (be it neighborhood, country, or world) is the best creation of civilization. Is it morally wrong to steal? By semantics, we consider it to be stealing only when it is not allowed by our legal system. Taking someone else's wealth, against their will, is acceptable if the community decides to do it. So by this definition, the federal government is not "stealing" when they require me to pay taxes.We have a similar definition of murder. It is not (for most people) murder when the government performs an execution. Nor when a soldier shoots a bomb-laden terrorist. In the end, "stealing is wrong" becomes a tautology. Taking property from others in a way that is considered detrimental to society is what we call stealing.
Did we really steal America from Native Americans?
The way we went about it was not fair and square. That's one part of American history I am NOT proud of.
What percent of US land is still owned by Native Americans?
The real answer is very near zero. Reservations are Federal lands, and the land is legally owned by the Federal government. American Indians living on Indian reservations cannot take mortgages out on their homes, for instance, because banks know that American Indians don't own the land; the Federal government does. This is one of the reasons why Indians try to get off "the 'Rez"; they can own their own land. Since American Indians as a population percentage are small, and the exact percentage of American Indians living off-reservation is a hard figure to accurately determine for a few important reasons, an answer is unclear.
Did the US really steal Texas and other Mexican territories?
Obviously the USA seized the northern territories by armed force. “Steal” sort of introduces a moral term here. It’s not clear that is appropriate. How would the American Indians indigenous to those territories have looked at it?The Spanish imperial regime had used its army over a period of decades to gradually conquer the territories that came to form the states and territories of northern Mexico — not only the territories taken by the USA in the 1840s but states like Sonora, Chihuahua and Coahuila. The Spanish regime was engaged in settler colonialist project. They would bring in groups of mestizo and criollo settlers and create colonias. For example, Los Angeles was founded by the Spanish regime giving a land grant to a group of settlers in 1781 — on lands taken from the Tongva tribe. The settlers were mostly of mixed Spanish and African ancestry.The Spanish imperial regime also gave huge tracts of land to pets of the regime. The largest latifundia in California was most of the present-day San Fernando Valley — given to a former sergeant in the army, Pio Pico (a man of mixed Spanish and African ancestry). The Indians were used as semi-slaves on these big ranches — not paid wages.When Mexico became independent of Spain, the Mexican regime simply continued the same practices in regard to the settler colonial project in the northern areas. So what was the justification for any of these land claims or claims of territorial control by Mexico? Simple: Might makes right.Well, the USA was doing exactly the same thing — building its settler colonial project by gradually conquering the lands of the American Indians and moving west. The conflict between these two settler colonial regimes was inevitable.The USA had a more powerful economy and military. So they were able to seize the northern territories from Mexico. Justification? Might makes right.So you see the problem here. If your control over the lands there is based on might makes right, then you have no real basis of complaint if a more powerful entity beats you at that game.
Why did states ceding western land claims want the land to be ultimately made into new states?
Because the states were very concerned about maintaining some degree of equality and balance of power among themselves. If some states were allowed to grow larger and larger expanding westwards while others were contained in a fixed territory, then the expanding states would grow more and more powerful and dominate the contained states. So the contained states (like Maryland) demanded that the states with open frontiers give up their claims to further expansion. But then, who was going to govern all that frontier land? If it was all going to be federal property permanently, then as the frontier was settled you would effectively have the federal government as a 14th mega-state with more land under its direct control than all the other states put together. That didn't seem like a good formula for states' sovereignty either. So the only permanent solution was to allow the frontier lands to develop into new states as they became populated.
How did settlers acquire lands in the West?
doing homework and this was one of the questions. they are asking about the first settlers that moved out west when the frontier first "opened" answer fast please:)