Page images
PDF
EPUB

CESSIONS OF WESTERN LANDS.

sissippi and from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. This domain comprised about 830,000 square miles. Outside of the defined boundaries of the several colonies, there were extensive tracts west of the Alleghany Mountains. This extra-territorial

region was claimed - principally under the terms of the early royal grants or charters - by several of the by several of the Northern and by the three southernmost colonies. Its area was nearly one-half of the total area of the new United States. The northern claimants were Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York who asserted ownership to territory northwest of the Ohio River. Virginia also laid claim to part of this territory. The two Carolinas and Georgia claimed extensions of their territories, south of the Ohio River.

The question of the disposition of these western lands became a momentous problem as soon as the confederation of the States had been accomplished. The seven claimant States treated the royal proclamation of 1763 creating crown lands as of no binding force, but in opposition it was argued by the other six States that the United States had, under the treaty of 1783, succeeded to the rights of England to the crown lands, as a result of the efforts of the confederacy as a whole. It was also insistently argued that the possession of such vast territories by a few States would give those commonwealths a dangerous predominance over the others in

33

wealth and ultimate political power. From 1776, when Virginia, in her constitution, strongly asserted her claims to this land and the Maryland convention as strongly entered her protest and appealed to the Continental Congress, until the final adjustments in 1780 and thereafter, the controversy was constant and often serious. Finally, complying with a resolution of Congress in 1780 urging that this vast domain should be given to the Federal government, New York first made the cession of her part of the territory involved, in 1781. The other States followed her example; Virginia in 1784 and 1788; Massachusetts in 1785; Connecticut in 1786 and 1800; South Carolina in 1787; North Carolina in 1790; Georgia in 1802. The amount of territory, which thus became one of the great foundation stones, of real and enduring nationality for the United States, was as follows:

[blocks in formation]

34

THE ORDINANCE OF 1787.

posed of for the common benefit of the United States and be settled and formed into distinct republican states." In this resolution was the corner-stone of the territorial system of the future nation, the beginning of American public land legislation. During the ensuing seven years the subject, in one form or another, was continually under consideration by Congress. Several plans were proposed and considered for the laying out of new States, but no conclusive action was taken until April, 1784. Then a plan reported by a committee of which Jefferson was the chairman was adopted, which remained the law for the government of the territory for the ensuing three years. This plan carried in detail methods for surveying and dividing the territory, for making it into Territories and States and for its government. With some modifications, this plan was further approved by a committee and adopted by Congress May 20, 1785.

All this legislation was but the forerunner of the famous ordinance of 1787 which, based upon what had preceded, provided a complete and final plan for the holding, settling and governing of the territory. Praise of this ordinance as an act of high statesmanship and remarkable foresight has been general on the part of public men and historical students. Daniel Webster said of it: "I doubt whether one single law of any lawgiver, ancient or modern, has produced effects of more distinct, marked

and lasting Justice Salmon P. Chase praised the ordinance in these words: "Never probably in the history of the world did a measure of legislation so accurately fulfill and yet so mightily exceed the anticipations of the legislators." And others have spoken in similar terms.

character."* Chief

The ordinance was particularly remarkable in its complete destruction of the doctrine of tenure, so far as the United States are concerned. Since that time the individual title derived from the government has involved the entire transfer of the ownership of the soil. Said the public land commissioner of 1870, in summarizing the character and the influence of this ordinance: "Under its care and provisions the central and western states and territories of the Union, and the states in the territory south of the river Ohio have grown from weak and straggling settlements to mighty commonwealths and organizations containing more than 25,000,000 people. The ordinance began with a wilderness. Its principles embraced in existing laws, now govern in area and population the domain of an empire.”‡

Various results, profound and lasting, have been the outcome of the ac

* Daniel Webster, Works, vol. iii., p. 263 (Boston, 1851).

S. P. Chase (ed.), The Statutes of Ohio and of the Northwestern Territory, Introduction, vol. i.

The Public Domain, p. 159 (Washington, 1884).

USES OF PUBLIC LANDS; CHARACTER OF IMMIGRANTS. 35

quisition of this public domain and the administration of it and have vitally influenced the political, social and economic conditions of the country. For a hundred years the public lands were used as bounties to veteran soldiers and sailors. At the outset they were an important source of public revenue and formed a basis for national finance. In diplomacy and in war they have been of the highest importance as in the matter of the territorial acquisitions from France, Spain, Mexico, and Russia. They have been the means of effecting internal improvements, of promoting the cause of education, of influencing problems of transportation, of developing the mineral resources of the country, of stimulating agriculture, manufacturing industries and commerce, and of encouraging an immigration that in the closing years of the Nineteenth century had come to be one of the most important economic problems of the hour.*

* W. B. Weeden, Economic and Social History of New England, 1620-1789, vol. ii., (2 vols., Boston, 1899); J. A. Doyle, The English Colonies in America; Thomas Donaldson, The Public Domain (Washington, 1894); W. R. Shepherd, The Land System of Provincial Pennsylvania, in Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1895 (Washington, 1896); J. B. McMaster, A History of the People of the United States (7 vols., New York, 1884-1910); P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century (2 vols., New York, 1896); Peter Force, American Archives, series iv., vol. i. (9 vols., Washington, 1837-1848); Justin Winsor (ed.), Territorial Acquisitions and Divisions, in Narrative and Critical History of America, vol. vii. (8 vols., Boston and New York, 1889); B. A. Hinsdale, The Old Northwest (New York, 1888);

Wealth.

Few of the pioneers of the New World brought much wealth with them. Broadly speaking they came with empty hands and empty pockets. In fact, many went into debt in order to cross the Atlantic, landing not only without wealth or resources, but even with their bodies in pawn. Mostly, they were of the middle class at home, with moderate means. Or they were very poor; servants, debtors, redemptioners, released convicts, adventurers. They came, not bringing fortunes, but to make fortunes.

Exceptions there were to this sweeping generalization, and exceptions of a notable character. When the settlement of America had been fairly begun, it was encouraged and supported by men of wealth in England, merchants and others who hoped financially to profit from their ventures. Some of these came over personally to look after their investments. or sent over others of their class. Some of the leaders in the early migrations from England were men of substantial standing in material possessions, or even of wealth. Such, for example, were John Winthrop, Thomas Dudley, Richard Saltonstall and others of Massachusetts, who were men of high social standing and rich as riches went in those days.

S. P. Chase (ed.), The Statutes of Ohio and of the Northwestern Territory (3 vols., Cincinnati, 1833-1835); annual reports and publications of the United States General Land Office; papers in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. xxxiii. (Philadelphia, 1909).

36

EARLY SOURCES OF WEALTH,

Ferdinando Gorges spent large sums from his private fortune in exploring and settling northern New England. Theophilus Eaton who founded New Haven in 1638 was a rich merchant of London. Lion Gardiner, who settled first in Connecticut and afterward on Long Island, was a man of independent fortune. Almost without exception, the first Dutchmen on Manhattan Island were poor men, principally employees of the West India Company. Before the middle of the Seventeenth century others, with more means, came out from Holland, and some of the enterprising first-comers had gone into trading for themselves and were beginning to make fortunes. William Penn was a man of wealth when he came to found the colony that was named after him. His father left him a large fortune, part of which was a claim of £16,000 against King Charles, who paid the debt with the royal charter of Pennsylvania. Cecil Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore, was also rich and used his wealth lavishly in the upbuilding of his colony of Maryland. He expended over £20,000 in the beginning, and his father, George Calvert, with several friends put £40,000 into the enterprise. The London branch of the Virginia Company, which undertook the settlement of Virginia, was rich and influential. Its stockholders sent much money to their colony and some of the Virginia founders were men of wealth and became richer in a few years in their new home.

In all the colonies there was much wealth before the end of the Seven

teenth century. In New England shipbuilding, lumbering, fisheries, and commerce with the West Indies and England had enriched many. In New York and the other Middle colonies, trade- considerably with the Indians and agriculture were the main sources of wealth. In the South, the raising of tobacco and naval stores made this the richest section of the country. There was more concentrated wealth in New York and Virginia than in any other colony. Most men were but in fairly comfortable circumstances. Millionaires were as yet undreamed of. The wealthiest men in the country were worth what would be equivalent to $100,000 to $250,000 in the Twentieth century.

A hundred years of life worked great changes in the colonies. Politically and commercially they were still attached to the mother country when the Eighteenth century opened, but socially and economically they had grown into an independent life of their own. Their wealth was now entirely of their own making and, except in the matter of a foreign market for their products, it was not drawn from the England which their ancestors generations before had called home. In New England there were few very rich families, principally in the seaports in the middle of the century. In New York there was much wealth and its possession conferred

REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY VALUES.

social importance. The great Dutch landholders had become the wealthiest, but there were many rich merchants in the cities, while the farmers were generally well off. In New Jersey, where the population was almost entirely farming, there was little individual or collective wealth. In Pennsylvania, principally in and about Philadelphia, there was much wealth; money had been made in trade, in agriculture and in land ownership. Banking interests in Philadelphia assumed importance early in the century. It was a Philadelphia banker, Robert Morris, who, with the help of a few loyal friends, practically financed the Revolution by using his private credit. In Virginia the leading families had acquired such wealth that they lived in princely magnificence and had much for public purposes. In 1775 the colony voted £40,000 for military purposes.

The chief, though not only, source of wealth was tobacco and that crop brought to the Virginians from $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 yearly. As practically all was sold to foreign markets, that amount was added to the wealth of the colony from that single source, either in money or fine furniture, rugs, tapestries, silver ware, clothing and other things with which they supplied themselves from abroad for their luxurious living.*

* W. B. Weeden, Economic and Social History of New England (2 vols., Boston, 1879); J. A. Doyle, The English Colonies in America (5 vols., New York, 1889-1907); P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century

37

Real and Personal Property Values. During the later colonial period there were big increases in the amount and value of property held Population had by individuals. grown from about 275,000 in 1700 to about 2,000,000 in 1765. By industrious development of the resources of the country, by expansion of territorial area, by bringing always more and more acres of virgin land to cultivation and other use, by commerce with the European world, this little nation had succeeded in acquiring a substantial amount of real and personal property. In 1770 when the population, as estimated, was about 2,205,000, the total real and personal property was well toward $750,000,000 or $300 to $350 per capita. Property figures of this period are necessarily largely guess work. No census was ever taken and valuations for assessments were infrequent, inaccurate and not comprehensive. But after the Revolution the real estate of the new Republic was estimated to be worth nearly $620,000,000 and, even after allowing for the

(2 vols., New York, 1896); George P. Fisher, The Colonial Era in America, vol. i., American History Series (New York, 1892); Robert Beverly, History of Virginia (Richmond, 1855); Charles C. Coffin, Old Times in the Colonies (New York, 1880); George W. Schuyler, Colonial New York (2 vols., New York, 1885); T. A. Glenn, Some Colonial Mansions, and Those who Lived in Them (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1889-1900); The Winthrop Papers, in Massachusetts Historical Society Collections; Mrs. Schuyler Van Rensselaer, History of the City of New York in the Seventeenth Century (2 vols., 1909); Moncure D. Conway, The Barons of the Potomac and Rappahanoock (Grolier Club, New York, 1893).

« PreviousContinue »