Hacker News Reader

Comment by ceroxylon | Hacker News Reader

Your point is valid, but it is worth noting that the panhandle territory was a notoriously inhospitable place to try and exist (for European settlers at least, who called it "no mans land"), so it wasn't like Texas was giving up a gem, none of the surrounding states wanted it.

View on HN

Texas ceded said land to another state, what they viewed as another nation, such that they could keep the practice of human ownership alive and well. The quality of the land is immaterial to this statement, let alone noteworthy

I disagree, I think it adds context that the political climate of the time was more complicated and involved than the original point. It was a place where you couldn't farm and were under constant attack, during that time.

But none of what you are saying shows a complication, is historically interesting, or a proxy for the political climate. Had Texas kept the land, they could not have enforced the ability for the white ruling class to purchase other human beings. Since they were so hell bent on the white ruling class having the right to purchase other human beings, they ceded land to a hostile nation state. The headline is the forfeiture of land to a hostile nation state, not how many farms are on said land

I have lived in Texas all my life and I am used to dealing with people like you. Enjoy November.

Isn’t that part of the llano estacado? The Comanche lived there just fine.

That's why I added the context about European settlers, it was the States that were drawing the lines and they labeled it "no man's land", look into the history of Beaver County.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com