SECTION I. SECTION I. 
The political economists of England have long wondered why theAmericans have not done what older nations would be glad to do,if the opportunity had not gone by;--reserved government lands,which, as it is the tendency of rent to rise, might obviate anyfuture increase of taxation. There are more good reasons than onewhy this cannot be done in America.
The expenses of the general government are so small that thepresent difficulty is to reduce the taxation so as to leave nomore than a safe surplus revenue in the treasury; and there is noprospect of any increase of taxation; as the taxpayers are likelyto grow much faster than the expenses of the government.
The people of the United States choose to be proprietors ofland, not tenants. No one can yet foresee the time when therelation of landlord and tenant (except in regard to houseproperty) will be extensively established in America. More than abillion of acres remain to be disposed of first.
The weightiest reason of all is that, in the United States,the people of to-day are the government of to-day; thepeople of fifty years hence will be the government of fifty yearshence; and it would not suit the people of to-day to sequestratetheir property for the benefit of their successors, any betterthan it would suit the people of fifty years hence to belegislated for by those of to-day. A democratic government mustalways be left free to be operated upon by the will of themajority of the time being. All that the government of the daycan do is to ascertain what now appears to be the best principleby which to regulate the disposal of land, and then to let thedemand and supply take their natural course.
The methods according to which the disposal of land is carriedon are as good as the methods of government almost invariably arein America. The deficiency is in the knowledge of the relationwhich land bears to other capital and to labour.1 Afew clear-headed men have foreseen the evil of so great adispersion of the people as has taken place, and haveconsistently advocated a higher price being set upon land thanthat at which it is at present sold. Such men are now convincedthat evils which seem to bear no more relation to the price ofland than the fall of an apple to the motions of the planets, areattributable to the reduction in the price of government lots:that much political blundering, and religious animosity; much ofthe illegal violence, and much of the popular apathy on the slavequestion, which have disgraced the country, are owing to thepublic lands being sold at a minimum price of a dollar anda-quarter per acre. Many excellent leaders of the democraticparty think the people at large less fit to govern themselveswisely than they were five-and-twenty years ago. This seems to meimprobable; but I believe there is no doubt that the dispersionhas hitherto been too great; and that the intellectual and moral,and, of course, the political condition of the people has therebysuffered.
The price of the public lands was formerly two dollars peracre, with credit. It was found to be a bad plan for theconstituents of a government to be its debtors; and there was areduction of the price to a dollar and a quarter, without credit.In forty years, above forty millions of acres have been sold. Thegovernment cannot arbitrarily raise the price. If any check isgiven to the process of dispersion, it must arise from the peopleperceiving the true state of their own case, and actingaccordingly.
Some circumstances seem at present to favour the process ofenlightenment; others are adverse to it. Those which arefavourable are, the high prosperity of manufactures and commerce,the essential requisite of which is the concentration oflabourers: the increasing immigration of labourers from Europe,and the happy experience which they force upon the back settlerof the advantage of an increased proportion of labour to land;and the approaching crisis of the slavery question; when everyone will see the necessity of measures which will keep the slaveswhere they are. Of the extraordinary, and I must think, oftenwilful error of taking for granted that all the slaves must beremoved, in order to the abolition of slavery, I shall have tospeak elsewhere.
The circumstances unfavourable to an understanding of the truestate of the case about the disposal of land are, the deep-rootedpersuasion that land itself is the most valuable wealth, in allplaces, and under all circumstances: and the complication ofinterests connected with the late acquisition of Louisiana andFlorida, and the present usurpation of Texas.
Louisiana was obtained from the French, not on account of thefertile new land which it comprehended, but because it wasessential to the very existence of the United States that themouth of the Mississippi should not be in the possession ofanother people. The Americans obtained the mouth of theMississippi; and with it, unfortunately, large tracts of therichest virgin soil, on which slavery started into new life, andon which "the perspiration of the eastern States" (as Ihave heard the settlers of the west called) rested, and grewbarbarous while they grew rich. A fact has lately transpired inthe northern States which was already well known in thesouth,--that the purchase of Florida was effected for the sake ofthe slaveholders. It is now known that the President wasoverwhelmed with letters from slave-owners, complaining thatFlorida was the refuge of their runaways; and demanding that thisretreat should be put within their pover. Florida was purchased.Many and great evils have already arisen out of its acquisition.To cover these, and blind the people to the particular andiniquitous interests engaged in the affair, the sordid factionbenefited raises a perpetual boast in the ears of the peopleabout their gain of new territory, and the glory and profit ofhaving added so many square miles to their already vastpossessions.
In the eyes of those of the people who do not yet see thewhole case, the only evil which has arisen out of the possessionof Florida, is the Seminole warfare. They breathe an intensehatred against the Seminole Indians; and many fine young men havegone down into Florida, and lost their lives in battle, withoutbeing aware that they were fighting for oppressors against theoppressed. Probably few of the United States troops who fell inthe late Seminole war knew how the strife arose. According to thelaws of the slave States, the children of the slaves follow thefortunes of the mother. It will be seen, at a glance, whatconsequences follow from this; how it operates as a premium uponlicentiousness among white men; how it prevents any but mockmarriages among slaves; and also what effect it must have uponany Indians with whom slave women have taken refuge. The lateSeminole war arose out of this law. The escaped slaves hadintermarried with the Indians. The masters claimed the children.The Seminole fathers would not deliver them up. Force was used totear the children from their parents' arms, and the Indians begantheir desperate, but very natural work of extermination. Theyhave carried on the war with eminent success, St. Augustine, thecapital, being now the only place in Florida where the whites canset their ftoot. Of course, the poor Indians will ultimatelysuccumb, however long they may maintain the struggle: but, beforethat, the American people may possibly have learned enough of thefacts of the case to silence those who boast of the acquisitionof Florida, as an increase of the national glory.
It would be a happy thing for them if they should know allsoon enough to direct their national reprobation upon the Texanadventurers, and wash their hands of the iniquity of thatbusiness. This would soon be done, if they could look upon thewhole affair from a distance, and see how the fair fame of theircountry is compromised by the avarice and craft of a faction. Theprobity of their people, their magnanimity in money matters, havealways been conspicuous, from the time of the cession of theirlands by the States to the General Govermnent, till now: and, nowthey seem in danger of forfeiting their high character throughthe art of the few, and the ignorance of the many. The few areobtaining their end by flattering the passion of the many for newterritory, as wel1 as by engaging their best feelings on behalfof those who are supposed to be fighting for their rights againstoppressors. There is yet hope. The knowledge of the real state ofthe case is spreading; and, if only time can be gained, theAmericans will yet be saved from the eternal disgrace of addingTexas to their honourable Union.
The brief account which I shall give of what is prematurelycalled the acquisition of Texas, is grounded partly onhistorical facts, open to the knowledge of all; and partly onwhat I had the opportunity of learning at New Orleans, from someleaders and agents in the Texan cause, who did what they could toenlist my judgment and sympathies on behalf of their party. Iwent in entire ignorance of the whole matter. My first knowledgeof it was derived from the persons above-mentioned, whose objectswere to obtain the good-will of such English as they could winover; to have their affairs well spoken of in London; and to getthe tide of respectable English emigration turned in theirdirection. With me they did not succeed: with some others theydid. Several English are already buried in Texas; and there areothers whose repentance that they ever were beguiled into aidingsuch a cause will be far worse than death. The more I heard ofthe case from the lips of its advocates, the worse I thought ofit: and my reprobation of the whole scheme has grown with everyfact which has come out since.
Texas, late a province of Mexico, and then one of itsconfederated States, lies adjacent to Louisiana. The old Spanishgovernment seem to have had some foresight as to what mighthappen, to judge by the jealousy with which they guarded thispart of their country from intrusion by the Americans. TheSpanish Captain-general of the internal provinces, Don NemisioSalcedo, used to say that he would, if he could, stop the birdsfrom flying over the boundary between Texas and the UnitedStates. Prior to 1820, however, a few adventurers, chiefly Indiantraders, had dropped over the boundary line, and remainedunmolested in the eastern corner of Texas. In 1820, Moses Austin,of Missouri, was privileged by the Spanish authorities tointroduce three hundred orderly, industrious families, professingthe Catholic religion, as settlers into Texas. Moses Austin died;and his son Stephen prosecuted the scheme. Before possession ofthe land was obtained, the Mexican Revolution occurred; but thenew government confirmed the privilege granted by the old one,with some modifications. The chief of the settlers and hisfollowers were liberally enriched with lands, gratis; on theconditions of their occupying them; of their professing theCatholic religion; and of their being obedient to the laws of thecountry.
Other persons were tempted by Austin's success to apply forgrants. Many obtained them, and disposed of their grants to jointstock companies; so that Texas became the scene of muchland-speculation. The companies began to be busy about"stock" and "scrip," which they proffered aspreparatory titles to land; and a crowd of ignorant and credulouspersons, and of gamblers, thus became greedy after lands which nomore belonged to any Americans than Ireland.
Leave was given to the actual settlers by the MexicanGovernment to introduce, for ten years, duty free, all articles,not contraband, that were necessary for their use and comfort.Under this permission, much smuggling went on: and manyadventurers settled in Texas for the very purpoce of supplyingthe neighbouring Indian tribes with contraband articles. Arms andammunition were plentifully furnished to the savages; and slavesto the settlers; though slavery had been abolished in thecountry, by whose laws the settlers had engaged to live.
The next step was, an offer on the part of thc United StatesGovernment to purchase Texas, in order to incorporate it with theUnion. The offer was instantly and indignantly rejected by theMexicans. It may seem surprising that even with the passion forterritory that the people of the United States have, they shoulddesire to purchase Texas, while above a billion of acres of landat home were still unoccupied. Slavery is found to be thesolution of this, as of almost every other absurdity andunpleasant mystery there. Slavery answers only on a virgin soil,and under certain conditions of the supply of labour. It isdestined to die out of the States which it has impoverished, andwhich come most closely into contrast with those which areflourishing under free labour. It is evidently destined soon tobe relinquished by Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, Maryland, andDelaware; and not very long afterwards, by the Carolinas, andperhaps Tennessee. The proprietors of slaves have a doublepurpose in acquiring new territory: to obtain a fresh field forthe labour of the slaves they possess; and, (what is at least asimportant,) to keep up the equality of the representation of theslave and free States in Congress. We have before seen that thereis a provision against the introduction of slavery into the landsnorth-west of the Ohio. When to the representation of the newStates of this region, shall be joined that of the old Stateswhich relinquish slavery, the remaining slave States will be in ahopeless minority in Congress, unless a representation from newslave regions can be provided. Texas is to be obtained first;and, if desirable, to be divided into several States; andafterwards, the aggressions on the Mexican territory willdoubtless be repeated, as often as a new area for slave labour iswanted; and an accession of representation, for the support ofslavery, is needed in Congress. Thus it happens that a host oflandspeculators, adventurers and slave-owners have, for a longseries of years, been interested in the acquisition of Texas.
On the refusal of the Mexican Government to sell Texas, thenewspapers of the slave-holding, portion of the United Statesbegan to indicate methods of obtaining the territory, and toadvocate the use of any means for so desirable an object. Theagent of the United States at the Mexican capital is believed tohave been instigated by his government to intrigue for thepurpose which could not be obtained by negotiation. The settlersin Texas made it known along the Mississippi that they might soonbe strong enough to establish slavery openly, in defiance ofMexico. This brought in an accession of slave-holding settlers,who evaded the Mexican laws, by calling their slaves"apprentices for ninety-nine years." The Mexicans tookalarm; decreed in the State Legislature of Texas that noapprenticeship should, on any presence, be for a longer term thanten years; forbade further immigration from the United States;and sent a small body of troops to enforce the prohibition. Thiswas in 1829 and 1830.
1n 1832, the Mexican troops were unfortunately wanted near thecapital, and called in from the frontiers and colonies. Thesettlers shut up the custom-houses in their part of the country,and defied the laws as much as they pleased. Then a great numberof restless, bad spirits began to pour into Texas from the wholeof the United States; men who had to fly from their creditors, orfrom the pursuit of justice. There was probably never seen a moreferocious company of ruffians than Texas contains at this moment.These men, who had nothing to lose, now set to work to wrench theterritory from the hands of the Mexicans. They actuallyproceeded, in 1833, to organize a State Government; opposedearnestly but feebly by the honest, original settlers, who weresatisfied with the contract under which they had settled, and hadeverything to lose by the breach of it. A Convention was called,to prepare a State Constitution, which Stephen Austin had theaudacity to carry to the Mexican capital, to pray for itsratification by the Mexican Congress. After some time, he wascommitted to prison on a charge of treasonable conspiracy. He wasstill in prison when I was at New Orleans, in May, 1835; and noone of the persons who conversed with me on Texan affairs alludedto the fact. They spoke of him as if living and acting among thesettlers. He wrote to the colonists from his prison, advisingstrict obedience to the Mexican laws; and, finally, gave hispromise to the government to promote order in the colonies; andwas dismissed, by the clemency of the administration, withoutfurther punishment than an imprisonment of nearly two years.
The wilder adventurers among the settlers had chafed at hisadvice, but found it necessary to be quiet for a time. TheMexican government put too much trust in them on this account,and restored, during Austin's imprisonment, the freedom ofimmigration, on the old conditions. The liberty was againshamelessly abused. Slaves were imported from Africa,via Cuba, and illegal land speculations were carried on with morevigour than ever. Troops were again sent from the capital tore-open the custom-houses, and enforce their regulations. But itwas now too late.
It had long been a settled agreement between the Texanadventurers and many slave-holders of the south, that if slaverycould no otherwise be perpetuated in Texas, it should be done bythe seizure of that province; all possible aid being given by theresidents in the United States, who were a party to theagreement. This was avowed by the adventurers in Texas; and theavowal has been justified by the subscriptions of money, arms,and stores, which have been sent through New Orleans; thecompanies of volunteers that have given their strength to the badcause; and the efforts of members of Congress from the south tohurry on the recognition of the independence of Texas by theUnited States Government. It was with shame and grief that Iheard, while I was in New York, last spring, of the publicmeeting there, which had been got up by men who should have putthe influence of their names to a better use,-- a public meetingin behalf of the Texan adventurers, where high-soundingcommon-places had been played off about patriotism, fighting forthe dearest rights of man, and so forth. The purpose was, Ibelieve, answered for the time. The price of stock rose; andsubscriptions were obtained. The Texan cause was then in thelowest state of depression. It soon revived, in consequence of anunfortunate defeat of the Mexicans, and the capture of thePresident of their republic, Santa Anna. This, again, was made toserve as the occasion of a public dinner at New York, when someeminent members of Congress were passing through, to the Springs,in the summer. The time will come when those gentlemen will lookback upon their speeches at that dinner as among the deeds which,dying, they would most wish to blot. By this time, however, thetrue character of the struggle was beginning to be extensivelyrecognised: and, day by day, the people of the United States havebeen since awakening to the knowledge of how they have beencheated in having their best sympathies called forth in behalf ofthe worst of causes. The great fear is, lest this should prove tobe too late; lest, the United States having furnished the meansby which the usurpation of Texas has been achieved, the people ofthe Union should be persuaded that they must follow their common,and otherwise fair rule, of acknowledging the independence of allStates that are de facto independent, without havinganything to do with the question de jure.
What has been the national conduct of the United States onthis great question? The government has been very nearlyimpartial. It must be allowed that factions and individuals werealready doing so much that, if the government wished all possiblesuccess to the Texans, it could hardly do better than be quietwhile they were receiving the aid of its constituents. While thetheft of Texas has been achieved, (if it be achieved,) by UnitedStates men, money and arms, the general government has beenofficially regarding it as ostensibly and actually a foreignaffair. However much may be true of the general belief in theinterest of its members in the success of the Texan aggression,the government has preserved a cool and guarded tone throughout;and the only act that I know of for which it can be blamed is fornot removing General Gaines from his command on the frontier, onhis manifestation of partisanship on the Texan side. GeneralGaines was ordered to protect the settlers on the south-westernfrontier, who might be in danger from the Mexicans, and from thefierce Indians who were engaged on the Mexican side of thequarrel. General Gaines wrote to head quarters of his intentionsof crossing, to attack the Mexicans, not only the inner bounds ofthe United States territory, but the disputed boundary, claimedby the United States, and disallowed by Mexico. Immediate orderswere despatched to him to do no such thing; to confine himself,except in a strong emergency, to the inner boundary; and on noaccount whatever to cross the disputed line. This was not enough.An officer who had shown himself so indisposed to the neutralityprofessed by his government, should have been sent where he couldindulge his partialities with less hazard to the national honour.
Some senators from the south pressed, last session, withindecent haste, for the recognition of the independence of Texas.The speech of Ex-President Adams remains as an eternal rebuke tosuch.2 This speech was the most remarkable individualact of the session; and no session has been distinguished by onemore honourable. There was no attempt at a reply to it, in or outof either House. Mr. Adams left no resource to the advocates ofthe Texan cause but abuse of himself: the philosophy of which he,no doubt, understood as well as other people. Various public men,in various public assemblies, have declared their desire for thesuccess of the Texans; and have joined with this the avowal thatthe value of slaves will rise fifty per cent., as soon as theindependence of Texas is acknowledged.
The war is not yet over. The vicissitudes have been sogreat,--each party has appeared at times in so hopeless acondition, that the friends of American honour, and the foes ofslavery, do not yet despair of the ultimate expulsion of theaggressors, and the restoration of Texas to Mexico. If thesehopes must be surrendered,--if slavery is to be reestablished ona constitutional basis, in a vast territory where it had beenactually abolished,--if a new impulse is thus to be given to thetraffic in native Africans,3--if the fair fame of theAnglo-Americans is to be thus early, and thus deeply stained,good men must rouse themselves the more to enlighten theignorance through which the misfortune has happened. They mustlabour to exhibit the truth, keeping unshaken their faith in thetheory of their constitution that "the majority will be inthe right."
It is much to be feared that, even if Texas were acknowledgedto-morrow to be a Mexican State, an injury would be found to havebeen done to the American people, which it will take a long timeand much experience to repair. No pains have been spared toconfirm the delusion, that the possession of more and more landis the only thing to be desired, alike by the selfish and thepatriotic; by those who would hastily build up their ownfortunes, and by those who desire the aggrandisement of theircountry. No one mourned with me more earnestly over this populardelusion than a member of Congress, who has since been one of themost vehement advocates of the Texan cause, and has thereby donehis best to foster the delusion. He told me that the metaphysicsof society in the south afford a curious study to the observer;and that they are humbling to a resident. He told me that, so farfrom the honour and happiness of any region being supposed to liein the pursuit of the higher objects of life, any man would bepronounced " imbecile" who, having enough for hismoderate wants, should prefer the enjoyment of his patrimony, hisfamily relations, and intercourse with the society in which hewas brought up, to wandering away in pursuit of more land. Hecomplained that he was heart-sick when he heard of Americanbooks: that there was no character of permanence inanything;--all was fluctuation, except the passion for land,which, under the name of enterprise, or patriotism, or somethingelse that was creditable, would last till his countrymen hadpushed their out-posts to the Pacific. He insisted that the onlyconsolation arose from what was to be hoped when pioneering must,perforce, come to a stop. He told me of one and another of hisintelligent and pleasant young neighbours, who were quittingtheir homes and civilised life, and carrying their brides"as bondwomen" into the wilderness, because fine landwas cheap there. If all this be true of the young gentry of thesouth, as I believe it is, what hope is there that the delusionwill not long remain among those who have no other guides thanExperience;--that slowest of all teachers?
The people of the United States have, however, kept their eyesopen to one great danger, arising from this love of land. Theyhave always had in view the disadvantage of rich men purchasingtracts larger than they could cultivate. They saw that it wascontrary to the public interest that individuals should beallowed to interpose a desert between other settlers whosewelfare depends much on their having means of free communication,and a peopled neighbourhood; and that it is inconsistent withrepublican modes that overgrown fortunes should arise by means ofan early grasping of large quantities of a cheap kind ofproperty, which must inevitably become of the highest value incourse of time. The reduction in the price of land would probablyhave been greater, but for the temptation which the cheapeningwould hold out to capitalists. Another reason assigned for notstill further lowering the price is, the danger of depreciating akind of property held by the largest proportion of the people.This is obviously unsound; since the property held by this largeproportion of the people is improved land, whose relation invalue to other kinds of property is determined by quite othercircumstances than the amount of the original purchase-money. Thenumber of people who sell again unimproved land is so small asnot to be worthy to enter into the account.
Large grants of land have been made to schools and colleges.Upwards of eight millions of acres have, I believe, been thusdisposed of. There seems no objection to this, at the time it wasdone; as there can be no doubt that grants will be cultivatedthat have such an interest hanging on their cultivation. Thesegrants were made while there was a national debt. Now, there is asurplus revenue; and appropriations of this kind had better bemade henceforth from the money which has arisen from the sale ofland than in a way which would force more land into the market.It is to be hoped, too, that no more recompenses for publicservice will be offered in land, like the large grants which weremade to soldiers after the revolutionary war. The soldiers havedisposed of their lands much under the government price, in orderto obtain a sale; and the hurtful dispersion of settlers, and thesale of tracts too large to be well-cultivated, have been therebyassisted.
The great question incessantly repeated throughout the UnitedStates is, what is to be done with the immense amount of landremaining unsold; and with the perpetually increasing revenuearising from the sale, as it proceeds? Various propositions areafloat,--none of which appear to me so wise as some which remainto be offered. One proposition is to divide the lands again amongthe States, apportioning the amount according to therepresentation in Congress, or to the population as given by thelast census. Besides the difficulty of making the apportionmentfairly, this plan would afford fatal inducements to a greaterdispersion of people than has yet taken place. It is also arguedthat no constitutional pouer exists by which the cession of 1787can be reversed.
Another proposition is, to let the sale of lands go on as itdoes now, and divide the proceeds among the several States, forpurposes of Education, Colonisation of the coloured race, andInternal Improvements. Under such a plan, there would be endlessdisputes about the amounts to be paid over to the differentStates. The general government would have a new and dangerousfunction assigned to it. Besides, as much of the surplus revenueis derived from duties, it seems a shorter and more naturalmethod to leave off levying money that is not wanted, than tolevy it, use it, and make a distribution of other funds among theStates. This subject will, however, come under considerationhereafter.
Others propose that nothing should be done: that the landsshould go on being sold according to the present demand, and theproceeds to accumulate, till some accident happens,--a war, orother expensive adventure,--to help to dissipate them. The firstpart of the proposition will probably stand good; for it seems adifficult thing to raise the price of land again:--an impossiblething, till the people shall show that they understand the caseby demanding an increase of price: but the second part of theproposition cannot be acceded to. It is inconsistent with thefirst principles of democracy that large sums of money shouldaccumulate in the hands of the general government. Theaccumulation must be disposed of, and the sources of revenuerestrained.
There are modes of advantageously disposing of the surplusrevenue which are obvious to those whose economical experience isprecisely the reverse of that of the people of the United States.They are not likely to be at present assented to,-- perhaps evento be tolerated by the inhabitants of the new world. Such as theyare, they will be presented in the next section.
The lowest price given of late for land, that I heard of, wasa quarter-dollar per acre; (for these are not times when threethousand acres are to be had for a rifle; and a whole promontoryfor a suit of clothes). Some good land may be still had, at adistance from roads and markets, from those who want to turntheir surplus land into money, for a quarter-dollar per acre.Some that I saw in New Hampshire under these circumstances hasadvanced in five years to a dollar and a half per acre: and someof about equal quality, about fifteen miles nearer to a market,sold at the same time for ten dollars per acre. I saw some lowland, on the banks of the river, near Pittsburg, which would notsell at any price a few years ago, when salt was brought over themountains on pack-horses, and sold at a dollar a quart. Now saltis obtained in any quantity by digging near this land; and themeadow is parted into lots of ten acres each, which sell at therate of one thousand dollars per acre. This is, no doubt, inprospect of the salt-works which are destined to flourish here.The highest price I heard of being given (unless in a similarcase in New York) was for street lots in Mobile; one hundred andten dollars per foot frontage.
For agricultural purposes, the price of land varies, accordingto its fertility, and, much more, to its vicinity to a market, ina manner which cannot easily be specified. I think the highestprice I heard of was fifteen hundred dollars per acre. This wasin the south. In the north and west, I heard of prices varyingfrom thirty to one hundred dollars, even in somewhat retiredsituations. One thing seems to be granted on all hands: that asettler cannot fail of success, if he takes good land, in ahealthy situation, at the government price. If he bestowsmoderate pains on his lot, he may confidently reckon on its beingworth at least double at the end of the year: much more, if thereare growing probabilities of a market.
The methods according to which the sales of the public landsin the United States are conducted are excellent. The lots are sodivided as to preclude all doubt and litigation about boundaries.There is a general land-office at Washington, and a subordinateone in each district, where all business can be transacted withreadiness and exactitude. Periodical sales are made of landswhich it is desirable to bring into the market. These aredisposed of to the highest bidder. The advance of the populationinto the wilderness is thus made more regular than it would be ifthere were not a rendezvous in each district, where it could beascertained how the settlement of the neighbouring country wasgoing on; titles are made more secure; and less impunity isallowed to fraud.
The pre-emption laws, originally designed for the benefit ofpoor settlers, have been the greatest provocatives to fraud. Itseemed hard that a squatter, who had settled himself onunoccupied land, and done it nothing but good, should be turnedoff without remuneration, or compelled to purchase his ownimprovements; and in 1830, a bill was therefore passed, grantinga pre-emption right to squatters who had taken such possession ofunsold lands. It provided that when two individuals hadcultivated a quarter section of land, (one hundred and sixtyacres,) each should have a pre-emption right with regard to halfthe cultivated portion: and each also to a pre-emption of eightyacres anywhere else in the same land district. Of course,abundance of persons took advantage of this law to get the bestland very cheap. Two men, by merely cutting down, or blazing afew trees, or "camping out" for a night or two, on agood quarter-section, have secured it at the minimum price. AReport to Congress states that there is reason to believe that"large companies have been founded, who procure affidavitsof improvements to be made, get the warrants issued upon them,and whenever a good tract of land is ready for sale, cover itover with their floats, (warrants of the requiredhabitation,) and thus put down competition. The frauds upon thepublic, within the past year, (1835,) from this single source,have arisen to many millions of dollars." Such errors inmatters of detail are sure to be corrected soon after beingdiscovered. The means will speedily be found of showing a dueregard to the claims of squatters, without precipitating thesettlement of land by unfairly reducing its price in the market.Whatever methods may tend to lessen rather than to increase thefacilities for occuppying new land, must, on the whole, be anadvantage, while the disproportion between land and labour is sogreat as it now is in the western regions of the United States.
1 I need hardly mention that I read "Englandand America" before I set out on my travels. It will appearthat I am under obligations to that valuable work for muchguidance.
2 See Appendix A.
3 The Texans pretend to deny that the slave-tradewill receive, or is receiving, an impulse from them. The case isthis. In the Texan constitution, tbe importation of slaves, exceptfrom the United States, is declared piracy. A mostwealthy slave-owner of Louisiana told me, in 1835, that theannual importation of native Africans (by smuggling) was fromthirteen thousand to fifteen thousand. This has much increasedsince. As long as there is a market for slaves, there will be theslave-trade, though there were a preventive cruiser to every mileof the ocean.
An official gentleman, from tbe British West Indies, informedme that much mischief has ensued from the withdrawing of two orthree small British schooners, which used to cruise about theislands, and were broken up on the plea of economy; --it beingsupposed that vessels so small could do no good which wouldcompensate for their expense. This is a mistake. If a slave shipsurrenders on summons, the ship and cargo are forfeited, and thatis all. If a gun is fired, in defence, the captain and crewbecome thereby liable to be hanged as pirates. Of course, tbosewho man a slave ship are ready to surrender to a cock-boat, withtwo men in it, rather than become liable to hanging for propertyin which they can have, at most, but a very small interest. Thusa schooner renders as good aid, and is as much an object ofdread, in this kind of service, as a larger vessel.
From Harriet Martineau, Society in America, VolumeII, Part II, Chapter I - Section I, - "Disposal ofLand". London: Saunders and Otley, 1837, pp. 66-93.
Forward to Society in America, Vol II,Chapter I, Section II, - "Rural Labour."
Back to Society in America, Volume II,Part II, Chapter I - "Agriculture."
Back to Society in America - Table ofContents
Back to the Dead Sociologists'Society Index