Talk:Charles Maclay

Untitled
What do you think of charles maclay?

Why does the tribe's opinion get mention here?
Reading this page, it is mentioned 3 separate times that the Tataviam believe Maclay "illegally displaced them from their land." But as both the article and news reports note, this isn't true: Maclay had bought the land.

From the article: "In 1874, Maclay purchased a 56,000 acre land grant" From news coverage: "After purchasing a 56,000 acre land grant in 1874, what was known as San Fernando Rancho, Maclay ruthlessly displaced and, the tribe believes, illegally removed the Tataviam people from their land."

Given that no evidence has been presented -- either here, or by the tribe in the below article -- for the claim that Maclay's actions were illegal (the San Fernando Sun even cites an 1896 article that argues the eviction was inhumane, but not illegal) why is there any mention of illegality here? This seems slanderous to Maclay -- maybe not in a legal way, but morally without a doubt.

(By the way, this article is currently plagiarizing the San Fernando Sun word for word. That too should be fixed.) https://sanfernandosun.com/2019/02/06/maclays-descendants-make-their-case-to-not-rename-street/) 50.202.144.210 (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)