Bar & Grill

In Greenville, you might see a restaurant include the words "Bar & Grill" in its title (e.g., Uno's Chicago Bar and Grill). As my friend Paul would say, "No worries!" Although you'll certainly find a bar, a staple in restaurants these days, you'll also find a significant portion of the establishment dedicated to food service.

Not so in Arlington. Assume it's only a bar unless told otherwise. Yeah, there's probably a grill somewhere in the back, but no one's eating, and no one goes there for food.

I've found out that learning a city means hitting and missing. Mostly missing, but when I hit, it's pretty cool. When I miss, it rots.

Goodnight.

Marshall justifies America's claiming ownership of Indian land

This type of post, justifiably, appears unorthodox. Not the scholar, I'm definitely not the type to blither on, sounding old toast all the while, about "intellectual" muck. I've been in the library all afternoon and just read an interesting, well-articulated SC decision from J. Marshall in 1823.

Here are the basics of the case (NOT to bore you): this guy Johnson purchases a piece of land from some Indians. Later, this dude M'Intosh obtained a land patent (right of ownership) from the US gov't to the same land. So who owns the land? Does Johnson, who got the land from the original inhabitants, or does M'Intosh, who got the land from the ruling national authority? Well, as much as Americans back then loved Indians ( . . . ), they loved land more and claimed ownership of any land they discovered (n. The act or process of finding or learning something that was previously unknown). So, yeah, I mean, realistically, the Indians discovered the land first. But evidently lacking a soul excludes you from owning land. So although Indians, technically, discovered the land first, they didn't own in; they just occupied it.

And guess the only person to whom the Indians could sell the land? Or, as Marshall puts it, who possessed the exclusive right to purchase from the Indians? Yeah, Uncle Sam. Not that Johnson guy, or anybody else, for that matter.

BUT before you start feeling all sorry for the Indians, as I did (I mean, there is this issue of natural rights . . . ), read the following:

". . . the tribes of Indians inhabiting this country were fierce savages, whose occupation was war, and whose subsistence was drawn chiefly from the forest. To leave them in possession of their country, was to leave the country a wilderness; to govern them as a distinct people, was impossible, because they were as brave and as high spirited as they were fierce, and were ready to repel by arms every attempt on their independence.

"What was the inevitable consequence of this state of things? The Europeans were under the necessity either of abandoning the country, and relinquishing their pompous claims to it, or of enforcing those claims by the sword, and by the adoption of principles adapted to the condition of a people with whom it was impossible to mix, and who could not be governed as a distinct society, or of remaining in their neighbourhood, and exposing themselves and their families to the perpetual hazard of being massacred."

Abandon America or take control using the sword to create order? A utilitarian concept, for sure. But moral, as well -- save lives? The Indians could not be controlled (think Lord of the Flies), even when Americans attempted to live peaceably among them. So was the US Gov'ts ultimate use of the sword justified? Upfront compensative measures would have been a more justified approach, rather than the immediate claim to ownership of land and later (necessary, I believe) domination by the sword.

Enough on that. I'll get to posting normal stuff soon enough. Until then, love y'all.