Nice try, but it doesn't wash historically. Johnson did veto the reauthorization bill in 1866, BUT THE NORTHERN CONGRESS DID NOT OVERRIDE HIS VETO. Nope, far too much money to be made in keeping the past Slave Owners in charge, so the North could make much more money off Cotton and other agricultural products. So they royally screwed over the Freed Slaves.
Were you an admirer of Chairman Mao or Fidel Castro?
Why would you advocate such a communistic practice in the USA?
Was there an American precedent to redistribute private land for free from the rich to the poor?
It wasn't only the northern people making money, it was the entire Union.
The south needed to pay their fair share of the Union war debt, right?
And since black people benefited from the results of the war too why couldn't they also help to efficiently grow the much needed plantation cotton?
I'll bet that the land grants were not private lands that were confiscated from rich people.Ex-Black Soldiers who came from the North, certainly went back home after the War, so of course I'm not talking about them.
Ex-Black Soldiers who came from the South really had no choice but to return home, because their families were in the South.
Unlike earlier wars, where U.S. Soldiers were given land grants for their service and though not in the East, they were not that far away. My own ancestor and his brother from Virginia were given land grants in Ohio for their service in the War of 1812, but chose to sell them and buy land in Kentucky and the extra money the sale gave them, paid for the costs of moving their families to Kentucky.
However, by the time of the end of the UnCivil War, any such lands the government could have granted would have been MUCH further west and thus economically totally impractical for the Ex-Black Soldiers and families to move to. The Northern States didn't want large numbers of Ex-Slaves coming north either.
As to the KKK, Federal forces were already used in different Southern States to clamp down on them. ACTUALLY had the Federal Government allowed the Ex-Black Soldiers to keep their Arms and supplied them with ammo, the former slaves/Ex-Black Soldiers and other Former Slaves they would have taught to use arms, would have been much more able to defend themselves against the KKK and other groups.
That's unAmerican and unconstitutional don't you think?
That's why there's no justification to take what you are saying over and over very seriously.
Why should black soldiers get preference over white soldiers?
Is that your idea of some kind of affirmative action?
It was tough enough to pass the post war amendments giving blacks citizenship and the vote, and now you think that they should be given preferential treatment?
I understand that this must be your idea of tongue-in-cheek right?
Public land grants do not equate to the redistribution of private property.
That's why the land grants were in the west.
Comparing public land grants to private land redistribution is like comparing apples to oranges.