|
|
|
|
|
|
by parineum
1322 days ago
|
|
|
> creating legal property rights to land previously held in common. That's not a use of land ownership, that's an amoral redistribution (theft) of land. They took ownership from one party to another. The amorality was the transfer, not the ownership. Unless you think both parties are equally amoral for owning the land in the beginning and the end of the process. The argument you're making would be like saying it was amoral for plantation owners to own the land they held because they had slaves. The problem is the slaves (and all the evils that came with it), not the plantation. |
|
|
Yes it was. That's why many confederates had their land and property seized, and their slaves freed by the confiscation acts.