Auswahl der wissenschaftlichen Literatur zum Thema „Land grants (Railroad) United States“
Geben Sie eine Quelle nach APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard und anderen Zitierweisen an
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Machen Sie sich mit den Listen der aktuellen Artikel, Bücher, Dissertationen, Berichten und anderer wissenschaftlichen Quellen zum Thema "Land grants (Railroad) United States" bekannt.
Neben jedem Werk im Literaturverzeichnis ist die Option "Zur Bibliographie hinzufügen" verfügbar. Nutzen Sie sie, wird Ihre bibliographische Angabe des gewählten Werkes nach der nötigen Zitierweise (APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver usw.) automatisch gestaltet.
Sie können auch den vollen Text der wissenschaftlichen Publikation im PDF-Format herunterladen und eine Online-Annotation der Arbeit lesen, wenn die relevanten Parameter in den Metadaten verfügbar sind.
Zeitschriftenartikel zum Thema "Land grants (Railroad) United States"
1
Kammer, Sean M. „Railroad Land Grants in an Incongruous Legal System: Corporate Subsidies, Bureaucratic Governance, and Legal Conflict in the United States, 1850–1903“. Law and History Review 35, Nr. 2 (13.03.2017): 391–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0738248017000049.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Near the end of the nineteenth century, English scholar James Bryce criticized Western railroad land grants as “often improvident” and as giving “rise to endless lobbying and intrigue, first to secure them, then to keep them from being declared forfeited in respect of some breach of the conditions imposed by Congress on the company.” Bryce also observed the extent to which grants of land to railroads allowed the beneficiary companies to exercise great power not only through their role as carriers of people and commerce, but also through their role as large landowners. This, he noted, brought them “yet another source of wealth and power” and “brought them into intimate and often perilously delicate relations with leading politicians.” From the perspective of the so-called “railroad tycoons” and their financial backers, the land grants became sources of wealth and power independent of and sometimes contrary to the interests of the railroad corporations themselves as carriers. Whereas Congress intended the railroad land grants to serve as a means to the end of railroad construction and the settlement of the federal government's expansive public domain, the railroads came to see them as an end in themselves: as independent sources of wealth and power.
2
Gurney, Brian, und Joshua P. Hill. „Leveraging Railroad Land Grants and the Benefits Accruing in The New Economic Landscape“. Journal of Transportation Management 30, Nr. 1 (01.07.2019): 39–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.22237/jotm/1561953900.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Unlike most companies, the major railroads in the United States have proven highly resilient to the vicissi- tudes of the market. We argue that this is due neither to the unique nature of rail haulage nor to superior management acumen. Rather this solidity is due to an immense wealth transfer to the railroads in the nine- teenth century that has dramatic impacts in the present. Moreover, the government protection and encouragement that rail grants represent did not end in the nineteenth century. It continues and represents an intangible asset that, while not on railroads’ balance sheet, is very real indeed.
3
Picard, M. „Remembering First Oil in Nevada“. Earth Sciences History 28, Nr. 2 (05.11.2009): 161–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.17704/eshi.28.2.3568120856325474.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
In June 1954 Nevada became the twenty-ninth oil-producing state in the United States (Picard 1955). Interestingly, production was from volcanic rocks from the open-hole interval 6,450 to 6,730 ft (1,966 to 2,051 m) in the Oligocene Garrett Ranch volcanics, an unexpected reservoir in the kind of rocks rarely productive anywhere in the world. The pour-point (65-80° F) and gravity (26-29° API) of the crude were high, similar to oils found in the Eocene Green River Formation of the Uinta Basin, northeast Utah. Cumulative production in the field through September 1978 was 3.3 million barrels of oil. An early estimate of ultimate primary reserves was four million barrels of oil (Bortz and Murray, 1979). The trap is a faulted truncated wedge of Oligocene and Cretaceous-Eocene rocks with a top seal of impermeable valley fill, a bottom seal of Paleozoic rocks, and an east-side seal formed by a basin boundary fault and impermeable Paleozoic rocks. The new field in Railroad Valley of east-central Nevada, finally totaling fourteen producing wells, was called Eagle Springs after the locality and the name of the discovery well drilled by the Shell Oil Company. Twenty-two years after the Eagle Springs discovery a larger oil field, Trap Spring, was discovered by Northwest Exploration Company less than ten miles west of Eagle Springs, in Tertiary ash-flow tuffs. Two hundred dry holes had been drilled in Nevada between the two discoveries. In 1982, six years after the Trap Spring discovery, Amoco Production Company drilled the first well outside of Railroad Valley at Blackburn field on the east side of Pine Valley in Eureka County. Blackburn, a structural trap above a Tertiary low-angle extensional fault, produces from Devonian reservoirs. In 1983, Northwest Production brought in the Grant Canyon field about 10 mi (6 km) south of Eagle Springs. The oil reservoir of Devonian carbonates there is entrapped in a ‘buried-hill’. The discovery in 2004 of the Covenant field in Central Utah, because of similarities to large oil fields in the thrust belt of Wyoming and Utah and some resemblance to the Nevada fields of the Great Basin, ignited a frenzy of leasing which still goes on when land is available. Located along the thrust-belt (hingeline), Covenant produces oil from the Jurassic Navajo Sandstone that apparently originated in the Paleozoic.
4
Schuh, G. Edward. „The Future of Land Grant Universities“. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 25, Nr. 1 (Juli 1993): 112–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1074070800018678.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The United States has for long had the world's premier system of higher education. No other country has anything that comes close to our major research universities (whether they be private or public), and that includes our international competitors, Germany and Japan. Our society expects a lot of our universities, and much more than other countries expect of theirs. For example, we were the only country in the world that turned to our universities (and especially to our land grants) to deliver an important part of our foreign policy in the form of economic and technical assistance to the developing countries.
5
Clay, Karen B. „Property Rights and Institutions: Congress and the California Land Act 1851“. Journal of Economic History 59, Nr. 1 (März 1999): 122–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022050700022312.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Governments frequently establish institutions to govern the transition in property rights when they acquire territory or experience radical changes in political regimes. By examining a specific example—the United States' acquisition of California from Mexico in 1848, this article investigates general questions about these institutions and institutional choice. The article fmds that the specific institution that Congress chose for California best balanced the interests of the federal government, American owners of land grants, and American squatters and settlers. Further, despite the lobbying, litigation, and delay associated with the institution, the institution was more efficient than prior institutions.
6
Pisani, Donald J. „The Squatter and Natural Law in Nineteenth-Century America“. Agricultural History 81, Nr. 4 (01.10.2007): 443–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00021482-81.4.443.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract In the decade before the California Gold Rush, the popular idea that Americans held a natural right to land as a legacy of the American Revolution was enriched and expanded by such events as the Dorr Rebellion in Rhode Island, the Anti-Rent War in New York, the flood of Irish refugees into New York City, growing opposition to the expansion of slavery into new territories acquired during the war with Mexico, and the Revolution of 1848 in Europe. These events strengthened popular sovereignty and the notion that human beings had rights that transcended those defined by legislatures, courts, or even constitutions. They also promoted a new discussion of how values within the United States differed from those in Europe--where land was scarce and served as the foundation for aristocratic regimes and sharp class differences. The squatter was a ubiquitous figure on every frontier of the United States, but none more than California, where both town sites and agricultural land were covered by Mexican land grants that took decades to define and confirm. This article tells the story of how powerful forces in California undermined squatter rights--and the heritage of the American Revolution as well.
7
Gonzales, Phillip B. „Struggle for Survival: The Hispanic Land Grants of New Mexico, 1848–2001“. Agricultural History 77, Nr. 2 (01.04.2003): 293–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00021482-77.2.293.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract At the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, the United States annexed what had been the Mexican Department of New Mexico, and as it did, it absorbed millions of acres of agro-pastoral land whose parcels had been under a communal system of ownership by Mexican citizen-villagers. From the heirs’ point of view, the subsequent American system of adjudicating ownership of these traditional properties proved inadequate, leading to the loss of two-thirds of their commons to American land speculators and the U. S. National Forest. Like the Native Americans, the heirs of these grants have long seethed in resentment over the steady erosion of their hold on their traditional lands and culture. This article outlines the processes of despoliation of the land grants from their original owners, and, more centrally, suggests the historical cycles of collective struggle that the heirs have mounted since the 1840s in order to retain and wrest back their commons, as well as organize the grants that they have been able to secure. A stubborn land-grant movement has gone through various forms of collective action including clandestine violence, protest confrontation, legal strategies, and political lobbying. In the most recent phase, activists have hopeful signs that the U.S. Congress is ready to respond to their demand for return of commons now under federal jurisdiction.
8
K, Chellapandian. „Impact of slavery System in America with Reference to Colson Whitehead’s the Underground Railroad.“ SMART MOVES JOURNAL IJELLH 8, Nr. 2 (28.02.2020): 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.24113/ijellh.v8i2.10402.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
This article tells you that how the slavery system flourished in America and the impact of slavery system in America. Slavery system in America started when Christopher Columbus discovered America in the year 1492. In 1508 the first colony settlement was established by Ponce de Leon in Samjuan. The first African slaves arrived in South Carolina in 1526. During the 16th and 17th century the city St. Augustine was the Hub of the slave trade. Once Britishers established colonies in America, they started importing slaves from Africa. At one point Mary land and Virginia full of African slaves. After the discovery America Britishers came to know that America is suitable for cotton cultivation so they dawned with an idea that for cultivating cotton in America, Africans are the most eligible persons. On the other hand Britishers believed that Africans know the methods of cultivation and they are efficient labours. So they brought African through the Atlantic slave trade to work in cotton plantation. The amounts of slaves were greatly increased because of rapid expansion of the cotton industry. At the beginning of 17th century Britishers were cultivating only cotton and later on they invented the cotton gin. The invention of the cotton gin demanded more manpower and they started importing more slaves from Africa.At the same time southern part of America continued as slave societies and attempted to extend slavery into the western territories to keep their political share in the nation. During this time the United States became more polarized over the issue of slavery split into slaves and free states. Due to this in Virginia and Maryland a new community of African and American culture developed. As the United States expanded southern states, have to maintain a balance between the number slave and free state to maintain political power in the united states senate.
9
Banna, Mahir Al. „The Chagos Archipelago Case and the Limits of International Law (English) L’Affaire de l’Archipel des Chagos et Les Limites du Droit International“. International Journal of Private Law and International Arbitration 1, Nr. 1 (2022): 08–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.54216/ijplia.010101.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The legal status of the Chagos archipelago is complex because it is of a hybrid nature: it is under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom which grants rights at sea to Mauritius, and on land to the United States (Diego Garcia). This case is also important because it is not easy to have two divergent preoccupations: the protection of the environment in the face of the rights of Chagossians and environmental sustainability in the face of equity and human rights. This case was first submitted to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), before the UN General Assembly had asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) about the claims that the PCA declared it lacked jurisdiction to answer.
10
Adelaja, Adesoji O. „The 21st Century Land Grant Economist“. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32, Nr. 2 (Oktober 2003): 159–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1068280500005943.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The land grant system is a value-added infrastructure, designed to extend the boundaries of traditional colleges and universities to bring science to bear on the pressing needs and problems of underserved citizens and communities. With supplemental resources to support mission-oriented research and outreach, the system has addressed a market failure in higher education. It has been a key asset in achieving for the United States a vibrant agricultural economy, a prominent position in world trade, significant rural development, healthy families and communities, and the increasingly sustainable natural resource base that are characteristic of “the great American Society.” This paper explores some of the recent challenges facing the land grant system, provides a framework for examining these challenges, and stresses the need for a new cadre of “land grant economists” to provide leadership as land grants struggle to identify new visions, missions, programs, and innovations that would serve as the bedrock of a new system. Selected areas of emerging opportunities for land grant intervention are also identified.
Bücher zum Thema "Land grants (Railroad) United States"
1
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resources. Release of United States interests in certain railroad grant lands in Tipton, California: Report (to accompany H.R. 4817) (including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office). [Washington, D.C: U.S. G.P.O., 2004.
Den vollen Inhalt der Quelle finden
2
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Validating conveyances of certain lands in the state of California that form part of the right-of-way granted by the United States to the Central Pacific Railway Company: Report (to accompany H.R. 2067). [Washington, D.C.?: U.S. G.P.O., 1985.
Den vollen Inhalt der Quelle finden
3
GOVERNMENT, US. United States Code annotated 2000.: Index. St. Paul, Minn: West Publishing Co., 2000.
Den vollen Inhalt der Quelle finden
4
Coy, Judy. San Anselmo. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing, 2013.
Den vollen Inhalt der Quelle finden
5
Resources, United States Congress House Committee on. Bureau of Land Management land conveyance, Grants Pass Oregon: Report (to accompany H.R. 1198) (including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office). [Washington, D.C.?: U.S. G.P.O., 1997.
Den vollen Inhalt der Quelle finden
6
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resources. Bureau of Land Management land conveyance, Grants Pass Oregon: Report (to accompany H.R. 1198) (including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office). [Washington, D.C.?: U.S. G.P.O., 1997.
Den vollen Inhalt der Quelle finden
7
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Resources. Bureau of Land Management land conveyance, Grants Pass Oregon: Report (to accompany H.R. 1198) (including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office). [Washington, D.C.?: U.S. G.P.O., 1997.
Den vollen Inhalt der Quelle finden
8
GOVERNMENT, US. An Act to Direct the Secretary of the Interior to Convey Certain Land to the City of Grants Pass, Oregon. [Washington, D.C.?: U.S. G.P.O., 1997.
Den vollen Inhalt der Quelle finden
9
1953-, Briggs Charles L., und Van Ness John R, Hrsg. Land, water, and culture: New perspectives on Hispanic land grants. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1987.
Den vollen Inhalt der Quelle finden
10
Dunaway, Maxine. Missouri military land warrants, War of 1812. Springfield, MO. (4545 S. Harvard Ave., Springfield 65804): M. Dunaway, 1985.
Den vollen Inhalt der Quelle findenBuchteile zum Thema "Land grants (Railroad) United States"
1
Lozano, Rosina. „United by Land“. In An American Language. University of California Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520297067.003.0002.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
After the U.S.-Mexican War (1846-1848), the newly created treaty citizens largely remained in the United States. Treaty citizens were tied to the land by occupation, and for the elite, by ownership of ranches and farms. Some chose to cross the border into Mexico in an attempt to retain their language and other cultural customs. Most treaty citizens resided in New Mexico where they remained the overwhelming majority of the settler community who precariously secured the territory for the United States over autonomous Indians. California’s treaty citizens, by contrast, encountered a swift attack on their land claims through the 1851 Gwin Act, which set up a system to verify Spanish and Mexican land grants. Treaty citizens’ use of the Spanish language often led to the loss of their land and disrespect from new Anglo settlers. The struggle to retain land in the U.S. Southwest facilitated elite treaty citizensinvestment into the territorial and state governments of the United States, which required concessions to their use of the Spanish language.
2
Martin, Albro. „Lawyers, Bankers, and “Real” Railroad Men“. In Railroads Triumphant, 320–38. Oxford University PressNew York, NY, 1992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195038538.003.0013.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract Americans have no quarrel with the implications of the stern pronouncement that stares down at them from the facade of Washington’s most beautiful building: the United States Supreme Court. The implication is that what is declared to be legal, is just, of course. The lady with scales depicted on the fly-specked wall of the county courthouse is Justice, is she not? The men who sit in final judgment on the decisions of the inferior courts, the laws of the land, and even the sacred Constitution itself, are themselves called “justices,” are they not? Every American believes that what has been duly declared to be legal is just—so long as he agrees with the verdict—and never mind the convoluted reasoning that may lie behind it. Out of this conviction has grown one of America’s most basic institutions and, nowadays, with more and more people looking beyond sweet reasoning with each other for justice, one of the fastest growing professions in the country: the practice of law. Not so gently, magnificently bearded Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes one day reminded an overheated pleader before the Court that it was nota court of “justice,” but of law.
3
Adkison, Danny M., und Lisa McNair Palmer. „State and School Lands“. In The Oklahoma State Constitution, 247–52. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197514818.003.0016.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
This chapter focuses on Article XI of the Oklahoma constitution, which concerns state and school lands. Section 1 provides for acceptance by the state of all grants of land and donations of money by the United States under the Enabling Act. In 1982, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that this section, when considered with the Enabling Act, is an irrevocable compact between the United States and Oklahoma for the benefit of the state’s schools. In accepting grants from the federal government to establish the permanent school fund, Section 2 requires that the fund may only be used for the benefit of Oklahoma common schools, and that the $5 million principal of the fund shall never be spent. The state is also required to reimburse the fund for all losses that may occur, and no portion of this fund is to be used for any other purpose. Meanwhile, Section 4 confers on the legislature exclusive power to set the rules and regulations for selling public lands granted to the state by Congress for charitable and other purposes.
4
Ablavsky, Gregory. „Sources of Title in the Territories“. In Federal Ground, 19–50. Oxford University Press, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190905699.003.0002.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
This chapter explores the intersection between the rabid market for land in the early United States and the territories’ property pluralism—the existence of multiple, conflicting sources of rights to ownership. The chapter focuses on the debate over three particularly significant sources of title: purchases from Native nations; state land grants under the system of indiscriminate location; and occupancy, commonly known in early American law as preemption. The collision between these different sources with unclear validity made ownership in the territories highly uncertain and spawned conflict. The federal government attempted to reform territorial property, deeming some sources of title legitimate while barring others, but both formal and informal law hampered these federal efforts to produce clarity of ownership.
5
Ehrenfeld, David. „More Field Ecology: Rightofway Island“. In Swimming Lessons. Oxford University Press, 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195148527.003.0035.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
On all but one of the field trips in my Field Ecology course, I take my students to the sorts of places that they have been to before: the beach, the pinelands, the Highlands forest, farms, old fields, streams, salt marshes, suburbs. But on the third trip, after the ones to the campus and to the experimental plots at Hutcheson Forest, we go to a place that is, for all its superficial familiarity, altogether different and exotic. This trip is to America’s deserted empire, what the person who knew it best, ecologist Frank Egler, described as the Right of way Domain. Right-of-way land comprises at least fifty to seventy-five million acres in the United States, an area larger than New England. It is disposed as long strips of property along railroad tracks, roads, and canals; under power lines; and above buried pipelines. Many of these rights-of-way, even those in heavily populated areas, are scarcely ever visited by people—they are cut off from human presence by fences, no-trespassing signs, patrolling police, dense vegetation, and a scarcity of reasons to set foot in them. True, some abandoned rights-of-way have been put to use. The tow-path and adjacent land along the old Delaware–Raritan Canal, which winds its way for many miles through central New Jersey, has become a very long, very narrow, very popular state park. Indeed, this is the park that has helped protect the forest along the Millstone River, which I de-scribed earlier. Hunters love the rights-of-way under power lines, which attract deer and small game. And disused railroad lines have been turned into foot and bike trails in several parts of the country. But many rights-of-way, totaling a huge amount of land, go for months or years without feeling a human step or hearing a human voice. These places are them-selves neither urban nor suburban nor rural; neither settled nor wilder-ness. They are a quintessential part of what author James Howard Kunstler has called “the geography of nowhere.” In my right-of-way trip we start with a boggy strip of land above a transcontinental gas pipeline.
6
Horton, James Oliver, und Lois E. Horton. „The Widening Struggle, Growing Militancy, and the Hope of Liberty for All“. In In Hope of Liberty, 237–68. Oxford University PressNew York, NY, 1996. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195047325.003.0010.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract Few understood the precariousness of African-American freedom better than Solomon Northup. He was the freeborn son of a former slave who had acquired enough land in Washington County to qualify as a voter in New York State, and spent his youth there, doing farm work with his father, cultivating a love for books, and playing the violin, what he called “the ruling passion of my youth.” In 1829 his father died and Northup married Anne Hampton, a local young woman of African, European, and American Indian ancestry who worked as a cook. He worked for a time on the Champlain Canal and then moved to the village of Kingsbury where he farmed a small plot of land and supplemented his income by playing the violin for local parties and dances. In the early spring of 1834, the Northups moved to Saratoga Springs, New York where Solomon drove a hack, worked on the Troy and Saratoga Railroad, and played his violin at resorts. He and Anne were both employed at the United States Hotel, and there he met slaves who accompanied their vacationing southern masters, puzzling over the power that could hold a human being in bondage against his will.
7
Windlesham, Lord. „Populist Pressures and Organized Interests“. In Responses to Crime, 169–212. Oxford University PressOxford, 1996. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198262404.003.0005.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract A century before populist pressures on both sides of the Atlantic became such a potent stimulant to legislation aimed at combating crime, ‘populism’ in America had taken on a more specific meaning. Stemming from the discontent of small farmers at their inability to come to terms with and benefit from the changes sweeping across the agrarian economy in the latter part of the nineteenth century, it developed into an organized political movement. Candidates were nominated for public office, including the Presidency of the United States, but they soon found that converting discontent into votes was another matter. There were some electoral successes, mainly confined to the poor and thinly populated states of the Mid and Far West, and also in the South.1 The movement did not gain support in the industrialized North, and pop¬ulism as a coherent force, standing for the interests of the yeoman farmer against exploitation by men with ‘more power and fewer scruples-land grabbers, railroad tycoons, credit merchants, bankers, middlemen’,2 was short-lived. Yet the rise and fall of the Populist Party was more than a solitary and passing phenomenon. It was early evidence of a strain in the American political culture which sat uneasily with representative democracy and was to surface many times in many different contexts in the century that followed.
8
Fisher, William W., Morton J. Horwitz und Thomas A. Reed. „Law and Organizational Society“. In American Legal Realism, 130–63. Oxford University PressNew York, NY, 1993. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195071221.003.0005.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract Between the Civil War and World War I, three related developments transformed the American economy. First, the scale of economic organizations increased dramatically. Many private corporations grew to sizes that during the antebellum period would have been unimaginable. By 1904, 2000 firms (approximately 1 percent of the total number of businesses in the United States) produced annually 40 percent of the nation’s industrial goods. The national markets for several products (for example, oil, tobacco, and sugar) were almost completely controlled by one or by a few corporations. Agriculture was undergoing a similar transformation. Mechanized “bonanza” farms, encompassing as much as 10,000 acres of land, were multiplying. And growing numbers of farmers were joining huge economic and political associations, like the Northern and Southern alliances, that promised to defend their interests. To some extent, the growth of these organizations was attributable to the same forces that powered the industrial revolution in the United States. Improved transportation and communications systems (especially the establishment of a national railroad and telegraph system) and the rapid growth of the cities (fueled partly by immigration) increased sharply the number of consumers a firm could reach. Urbanization also produced convenient concentrations of skilled and unskilled labor. Technological innovations (like the Bessemer process and mechanical harvesters) necessitated or placed a premium on large factories and farms. Finally, a vastly expanded pool of capital reated by a high domestic savings rate reinforced by increased foreign investment and managed by a host of new financial intermediaries-made the formation of large enterprises feasible.
9
Lehmann, Scott. „Federal Lands, Past and Present“. In Privatizing Public Lands. Oxford University Press, 1995. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195089721.003.0006.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
How did the federal government end up with title to a quarter of the land in a nation with a long-standing distrust of government power, a corresponding faith in individual enterprise, and democratic institutions designed to make government policies reflect its will? While explanation is not justification, an account of their evolution can help make some sense of current federal land policies. In this chapter, I outline the history of federal lands and the shape of the current management regime, indicating what agencies are responsible for what lands under what statutory charters. Readers familiar with these topics will find nothing new here and may wish to skip to the concluding observations. The federal government got into the real-estate business early on. Through a political compromise between the original states, it acquired the old “western lands” between the Appalachians and the Mississippi. During the colonial period, England had rather imprecisely divided the land it claimed in America among its colonies. Charters granted extensive lands beyond the Appalachians to some colonies, sometimes the same lands to different colonies. Connecticut and Massachusetts, for example, claimed the same 26 million acres in the old Northwest (north of the Ohio River, west of the Appalachians). England revoked some of these grants in 1774, but colonies thereby severed from their western lands regarded the War of Independence as a means to regain what had been theirs. States with no historical claims to press wanted to share in what they considered war booty “wrested from the common enemy by the blood and treasure of the thirteen states.” They proposed that the western lands be surrendered to the federal government “to be disposed of for the common good of the United States.” Maryland feared that otherwise it would have to make good on promises of land in exchange for service in the Revolution that the Continental Congress had made to Maryland troops. For the same reason, the national government, such as it was, promoted state cession of western lands: nobody relished the prospect of angry veterans marching on Congress to demand the land they’d been promised.
10
Martin, Albro. „The Passenger Train Creates Modern America“. In Railroads Triumphant, 81–109. Oxford University PressNew York, NY, 1992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195038538.003.0004.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract The depopulation of the countryside by the industrial revolution, which so troubled the English, did not take place in the United States, although the character of the population changed dramatically. A growing tendency for farm boys (and more and more girls) to forsake the land for the rising urban centers was apparent by the turn of the century, and it alarmed a few old-timers like James J. Hill, who saw in it a fatuous belief on the part of young people that they could “live without working.” But most Americans were proud of the transformation of villages into towns and towns into ambitious cities—a trend that would last as long as the railroad train was the chief mode of intercity transportation. Most people saw in such trends nothing less than the march of progress across what had been, within the memory of many still living in 1920, an empty, inviting landscape. The passenger train, which so many historians have seen as “knitting together” localities into a national whole, did no such thing. It rather created those local and regional centers, in the process of creating a highly vertebrate nation that by the early twentieth century had achieved an efficiency and trustworthiness of travel, transport, and communication that would not survive the emergence of the automobile and its suburbs. Reflecting upon the fact that it was the railroads that created the heavy industry that made universal ownership of cars possible, we can see how the passenger train contained the seeds of its own destruction. In its day, however, which lasted almost a century, the train was as totally in command of national mobility as the car has been since.
Berichte der Organisationen zum Thema "Land grants (Railroad) United States"
1
Reznickova, Alice. Lost Inheritance: Black Farmers Face an Uncertain Future without Heirs’ Property Reforms. Union of Concerned Scientists, Juni 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.47923/2023.15127.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Black farmers in the United States lost nearly 90 percent of their farmland during the 20th century. Researchers and advocates have identified the legal tangle known as heirs’ property as a potential leading cause of this historical and ongoing loss of wealth. Heirs’ property is land passed down through generations to multiple heirs without a clear legal title, and Black landowners have been disproportionately affected due to systemic racism in the United States. As a result, landowners underutilize otherwise productive farmland, have difficulty accessing federal loans and grants, and lose land to predatory buyers through sales forced on heirs who might have farmed it. The federal government has an obligation to help these landowners resolve title issues and improve their access to federal funding, which would support a new generation of Black farmers in rebuilding wealth for their families and communities.