Any one who owns U.S. property benefited from the conquest of American Indians through selling, trading and passing down the benefits through money or property to their heirs.
129238
First off the ancient rite of war that every nation has lived by including the Lakota, which removed the Nation that was here before them, the victor of war gets the land.  While there was some chicanery and our forefathers  only really won a hand full of battle the Indian Wars were more a war of attrition and the Nations lost the land due to that fact.\n\nYes, we have contributed to the land, there are more trees than were on the Continent at the time of Columbus's landing.  We grow most of the food uses to survive.
636471
Depends on whether you consider the American Indians immigrants.
293564
yes...  he  inherited a country with a surplus, at peace, and an expanding economy.. a country that was respected and admired around the world, i remember a time or newsweek cover dealing with that..  Now, look at what we got, is there a need to say anything else.
51833
Any persom or group of people are able to create a legal business enterprise to make money.
109201
Americans were drawn to the idea of open territory and new unexplored land and all wanted to be the first to get a piece of it.  Plus the government added incentives such as cheap land for working the soil, and jobs on building railways and such
95130
Some states hold the property.
628988
No! We only have the rights we can buy! We are slaves and don't know it. No stock holders group would pay what our officials are and never return a profit!\nWE should get paid like this!\n\n\nThe Alaska state constitution claims common heritage rights of ownership of oil and other minerals for the people of the state as a whole. Citizen dividend checks are distributed every year in Alaska out of the interest payments to an oil royalties deposit account called the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF) created in 1976 after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The APF is a public trust fund - a diversified stock, bond and real estate portfolio - into which are deposited the oil royalties received from the corporations which extract the oil from the lands of Alaska. The first citizen dividend check from the interest of the APF was issued in 1982 and was for $1000 per every person for everyone in Alaska who had resided in the state for at least one year. Annual citizen dividends have been issued every year since then, for a total of more than $23,000 per person. \n\nIn 2003, each of the nearly 600,000 Alaska US citizens (residents of Alaska for at least one year) received a check for $1,107 from the APF. The total amount dispersed was $663.2 million. The $25 billion investment fund's core experienced stock market losses which led to the dividend's decline this past year compared to the several previous years. The amount was $433 less, a 28 percent drop from the 2002 pay out of $1,540, and a 44 percent decrease from the all-time high of $1,964 in year 2000. The amount changes based on a five-year average of APF investment income derived from the bonds, stock dividends, real estate and other investments. \n\nAlaska relies on oil for about 80 percent of its revenue and has no sales or income tax. Alaska state government is mandated to invest 25% of its oil revenue into the APF while the other 75% of oil royalty revenue is dispersed to other government funds to finance education, infrastructure and social services. If 100% of Alaska's oil royalties had been deposited into the APF, it is conceivable that the CD this year could have been about $4,400 or $17,600 for a family of four. But then there would have been no funds for roads, education and other public services and no funds available to run the state legislature - a libertarian dream fulfillment or a social and economic disaster, which one we will never know. If state services were to have been maintained while 100% of oil royalties were deposited in the APF, there would of course have been the need for income, sales and other taxes on wages and production. \nSource(s):\n\nHoover Institution\n                                                                    Kuwait:\nDemocracy, Kuwait Style\n                                                                           Peter Berkowitz\nIt’s not that the woman question was the only issue faced by voters. From the owner and editor in chief of Kuwait’s largest newspaper, to the chief executive officer of Kuwait Petroleum Company, to the former Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States, our interlocutors argued that the Kuwaiti economy is stagnating and that the remedy is privatization. This is a difficult proposition, however, in a country where 90 to 95 percent of the labor force is employed by the government, which generally pays more than the private sector. And designing institutions to create the right incentives will be difficult in a country whose oil wealth supports a massive welfare state with no taxes that generously funds its citizens’ health, education, and housing needs. \n\nPollution free electric power has been all over DC. Clinton, Gore, Newt, Sam Nun, DOE, Bush and many other you wouldn’t know.\n\nClinton “was too busy moving the country forward”\nGore said “I wish you good luck, I’m glad to see other’s are working on our energy problem”\nNewt “promised his full support” To sell to Ga. Pow
549422
Depends do you own the mineral rights?
87180
There was really no bad or good.  Just ignorance and greed on the part of the Europeans.  They thought that they were doing good when trying to convert the native peoples.  It just pissed the Indians off.  I agree that it was right of them to fight for their land, tho.
642557
Because the "American Republic" are using Iraq for their own personal benefits.
5847
It was given to you and is yours to do  whatever you want with it.  I see no problem in selling it, if that is what you want to do with your property.
454603
just give them back there land and call it even and while were at it give the Hawaiians back there islands Russia can take back Alaska sell the mid-west back to the french give the east coast back to the Indians get on little boats and sail you ass back to England oh, and don't forget to swing by Africa...its not like where using them anymore.
82016
Title is good, very good answer, but what about POWER? The man with the power takes the possession regardless of who has title. Ask the native American about this.  For Example: Most deeds to land are granted originally by a government that took the title by force of arms.\n Possession gives you a better chance  initially to defend title but if it is overcome by power, it does not mean didly. Ask the evicted tenant about this, he had possession but it did him no good. The Irish people have experience in this realm.
417406
I'm having a hard time following the premise of your question.\n\nYou state..."It was Mexico that made the deal to sell off the southern states."\n\nThis is historically unfounded. The American states of the Deep South (Mississippi, Alabama, etc.) were all a part of the original territories of the United States, formed before Mexico achieved independence.\n\nOther Southern states like Louisianna and Arkansas, etc, were carved from the Louisianna Purchase which was negotiated between the US and France.\n\nThe state of Texas achieved independence as a result of war with Mexico. (Again, Mexico "sold" nothing). And the states of the American Southwest were taken from Mexico during the Mexican-American War. (Mexico didn't "sell" them).\n\nThe only portion "sold" to the US was a tiny sliver of land in southern Arizona, known as the Gadsden Purchase. \n\nThese things being the case -- can you clarify you point, please?
35915
In 1830 the Congress of the United States passed the "Indian Removal Act." Although many Americans were against the act, most notably Tennessee Congressman Davy Crockett, it passed anyway.\n\nDavy Crockett went on record against it, and it cost him his seat in Congress.
339770
Because India was controlled by England for several years.
290706
The Indians (Native Americans) either got killed off by diseases brought over by the Europeans, shot and killed, or gathered up and moved to OK or reservations. The Cherokees, Navajo, and others were forced off their native lands.\n\nThe Blacks had the freedom to move about and settle unlike the Native Americans. Plus, they didn't have historic and cultural land connections in the Americas that Native Americans have. This can be seen in their different oral histories and folklore.