Published: Tuesday, Aug. 19 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
Re: "These lands are Utah's birthright."The sad thing
is that many Utahns would be willing to sell their birthright for a mess of
So what do you want do with it; that precious land??? Drilling for oil, and
mining coal and leaving it looking like moonscape for future generations should
not be an option. Neither should you have free-reign to ride your noisy,
polluting machine wherever you want.I for one appreciate what Mr.
Salazar represents for the future of our Nation. I hope Utah's
"leadership" continues to show America how much Utah needs
protecting...from Utah's leadership and greed-driven, self-interested
Well, Bill, it would seem to me that Utah's lands are the
"birthright" of the Natives, and we white people certainly aren't
Every Indigenous Native American in Utah must be laughing out loud right now...
LDS Liberal, I don't think even the natives are even native to this
continent if you go far enough back in history. They just came a lot earlier
than European settlers.
The Navajo people did not arrive in Utah until about 1700 ad. All the tribes
came from other areas. In the mid-18th century, other Uto-Aztecan tribes,
including the Goshute, the Paiute, the Shoshone, and the Ute people, also
settled in the region. The southern Utah region was explored by the Spanish in
1540, led by Francisco Vásquez de Coronado. And the Utah pioneers arrived
in the mid-19th century, only about a hundred years later.
According to Dictionary.com birthright means:"any right or
privilege to which a person is entitled by birth"So if present
day Utahans are selling our land to the petroleum company Royal Dutch Shell, or
oil shale developer Enefit (Estonia) aren't we giving up future
generation's "birthright" to the land?
#1. Utah should have the same rights as States back East. The STATE should
control the land in our State (not Federal bureaucrats in the Capitol, treating
us like a "District" in the Hunger Games).#2. Other States
control their land, and they haven't become moonscapes... why would Utah
become a moonscape? People in Utah are just like the people in every other
State!Note:Parts of Utah are already NATURAL moonscapes
(literally been used by NASA for moon mission training, and by Hollywood when
filming scenes they want to look like they are on another planet.===============Why is Utah treated differently???Is it
still the Mormon thing? Because Utah is not predominately Mormon anymore. So
I hope folks back East can get over that one.Is it because we use
the land for agriculture (Agriculture is still the #1 industry in Utah)?Is it because we mine some of the land? we mine essential elements
that make modern living possible. From medicine, food and shampoo, to cell
phones, computers, CAT scans and hybrid electric cars, nearly everything you use
today relies on materials that we produce.Google "States
Rights", "Constitution", "10th Amendment"...
I always wonder if guys like Bill, from Hurricane, thinks these things through
all the way. Even if the state of Utah got control of these lands, is he
delusioned enough to think that the population centers of Utah(aka, not
Hurricane) will still control these lands. Trust me, the legislator and governor
wouldn't just be handing these lands to the Washington County commissioner.
Would you like there choices any better than the Feds?
Indigenous Native Americans in Utah were long gone by the time of the pioneers.
They consisted of the Clovis era, who it is believed migrated from the
Asian continent. Subsequent groups, the Anasazi which occupied southern Utah
and the Fremont group that covered a larger area. Of course the Fremont is a
reference to a cultural grouping of similar life styles and does not actually
refer to a tribe or race.
Lightbearer stated it perfectly.
By this reasoning, all the privately owned land within the borders of Utah
reverted to state ownership on Jan. 4, 1896. IOW, the reasoning is flawed.
Being part of a political entity does not mean all the property within that
sovereignty belongs to the entity. That would be, uh, communism...
@ jsf, are you kidding me? Where did you learn history. In every case where
someone above is arguing that Native Americans have no prior rights to those of
white settlers, your rationalizations fail to support your position! White
settlers just took the land away for their own use. In any case, Utah is a
state, granted statehood by the federal government, and is subordinate to that
federal government. To use the argument of the writer of the letter, there
would be no right to ownership of any land in Utah by anyone other than the
State of Utah because the land is located within the borders established by the
federal government. It is illogical, nonsensical, and a mistaken twisting of
the English language to reach a predetermined conclusion. Utah is free to
manage its state lands as it deems appropriate, and the federal government may
do the same with the lands it owns. It's not that hard of a concept.
"Territory" and "state" are referring to political designations.
Utah was a "territory" from 1850 to 1896. As a territory it was
controlled by the US Congress. At that time, similar to today, most of the land
was federally owned. All of the "Utah Territory" was then changed into
the all of the "state" of Utah. You are completely misinterpreting the
meaning of the clause.
"why would Utah become a moonscape? People in Utah are just like the people
in every other State!" Ummm, because it was a moonscape before
the federal government bought it, and allowed Utah petition to become a state,
and that at that time the terms and conditions were well known to all that
signed that agreement to gain statehood.Utah is a moonscape because
it has little to no water. The state out west are largely in private hands
because they were in private hands before there was a United States of America.
My in laws have raided in North Carolina for over 100 years before there was a
United States. Utah was not a sovereign land. It never, ever, was.
The settles who moved there had no "birth right" to that land. They
did have a birth right to become citizens of the United States, and the State of
Utah, once there was a State of Utah. But Utah was never their land of
The language of the Enabling Act is very clear. All the lands that made up the
territory of Utah now make up the State of Utah (you will notice that there are
no lands in Utah that are part of Arizona or Alaska or some as yet unnamed
state). While Bill is focusing on the word "all," he is
missing the phrase "as hereinafter provided." One of the provisions,
"That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that
they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands
lying within the boundaries thereof;...""All" of the
land makes up the State of Utah, but some of it belongs to the Federal
Government. The Utah Constitution backs this up, "The people inhabiting
this State do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title
to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries
hereof,..."Please note the word "forever" contained in
both places. There is no indication in any document from Utah Statehood that
"forever" means anything other than "forever."
@ 2 bits: You wonder why Utah is treated differently than Eastern States.
There is a very simple explanation for that. Eastern States were independent
states in full control of their land at the time they joined the United States.
Western States were formed in/from land owned by the United States government at
the time they became states - land acquired by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago,
in the case of Utah. Since the land already belonged to the US Government, it
is not odd that they choose to keep some of it.
Do you think the native Americans told us to "keep our mitts off their
land"? Let's be honest a person's birthright comes from the
barrel of a gun or a deep, oily checkbook.
you need to get away from the pc history Esquire. The historical facts are what
they are. Which statement have I made that is incorrect. When the Mormons
arrived in the salt lake valley, they occupied a buffer zone between the
Shoshone and Ute tribes. Difficulties did not start until they moved south into
the Ute areas. Failing to recognize the encroachment by the tribes that were
here when Mormons arrived is a failure to understand the migrations of peoples
in the Americas. So show me where I am wrong. Show the readers these tribes
existed in Utah prior to the eighteenth century. If you can't please let
readers know you couldn't.
Besides -- Utah was MEXICO before it was even a territory.What
is it with some Neo-Con and their disdain for Hispanics and Native Americans?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments