Settler Colonialism or Land Reform that Populated the Breadbasket

 

This map shows Land Districts and Offices in charge of selling Western land--a primary income source for the Federal government which helped keep taxes and tariffs low.  Some land agents, however, were corrupt and scandals common.  Individual speculators and organized stock companies borrowed money to buy vast tracts of land in the hopes of selling at inflated prices to settlers.  But most settlers could not afford the asking prices, the speculators and companies often could not pay their loans.  The result was financial failure and instability on one hand and a huge pent-up demand for cheaper land.  The Land Act of 1820 was meant to address both problems.

The Land Act of 1820 is a nearly forgotten piece of legislation passed by Congress which opened the Old Northwest Territory and Missouri to an avalanche of new settlement.  It was a byproduct of the Missouri Compromise. 

Population growth in the West was stymied by the almost constant bloody Indian warfare in the region from the end of the Revolution through the War of 1812 and by the high land prices and large minimum parcels required by the Land Ordinance of 1785. 

When a financial panic swept the nation in 1819 it became impossible for most would-be settlers to borrow the money needed to legally buy the land.  To escape high land prices mostly Scotch-Irish pioneers often pushed out ahead of land surveyors and squatted on land.  When the government caught up with them they argued that their improvements on the land should be subtracted from the cost.  They were often displaced and pushed further west. 

A deed to land in Indiana sold to James Benton McMurry in 1831 under the terms of the Land Act of 1820.  Note the document is attested to and initialed by President Andrew Jackson (or by a designee in the Executive Mansion under his authority) which was required by law for all sale of Federal land.  An example of the administrative minutia early Presidents were saddled with.

To make settlement more affordable and thus to reduce squatting, the new act reduced the minimum tract from 160 to 80 acres, a manageable family farm in the generally rich soil of the West. 

Buying land exclusively on credit—as was common among land speculators—was eliminated.  The price was reduced from $1.65 (set in 1804) to $1.25 per acre with a relatively affordable $100 down payment.  The very poorest, who probably could not even afford the necessary tools and equipment to bring the land into production, were excluded, but the cost was low enough to be manageable by many. 

Although speculators could still form land companies and buy large blocks of tracts, the recurring financial panics over the next few years drove many to bankruptcy while owner-operated farms could endure hard times on a subsistence basis.  

New Salem in Illinois was first settled in 1828 and was typical of the communities that sprang up across the West with liberalized land sale policies.  Even there not everyone could afford land.  Newcomer Abraham Lincoln from Indiana had to hire out as a wood cutter, river boatman, and store clerk.

In the end most of the farmland in the region sold at, or not much above the Federal price.  The success of the policy was astounding.  Illinois, for instance, had a population of about 55,000 in 1820.  Over the next 40 years the population doubled every ten years to almost 900,000 in 1860.  

Land sales were vigorous enough that even at the reduced price enough revenue was generated to operate the nearly skeletal Federal government. In fact, they provided enough income that they were largely responsible for the Federal Debt being completely paid off and retired—if only briefly—during the administration of Andrew Jackson.

Such a rapid explosion for population also had a dramatic effect on government as new Congressional seats were allotted with every new Census giving the West considerable regional clout.  By the eve of the Civil War the states covered by the act were no longer on the frontier.  They were well settled, prosperous, and with the advantages of easy access to markets via the great river systems and the new railroads, became the breadbasket to the nation. 

Land Reform American Style Screwing Speculators and Populating the Breadbasket

This map shows Land Districts and Offices in charge of selling Western land--a primary income source for the Federal government which helped keep taxes and tariffs low.  Some land agents, however, were corrupt and scandals common.  Individual speculators and organized stock companies borrowed money to buy vast tracts of land in the hopes of selling at inflated prices to settlers.  But most settlers could not afford the asking prices, the speculators and companies often could not pay their loans.  The result was financial failure and instability on one hand and a huge pent-up demand for cheaper land.  The Land Act of 1820 was meant to address both problems. 

The Land Act of 1820 is a nearly forgotten piece of legislation passed by Congress which opened the Old Northwest Territory and Missouri to an avalanche of new settlement. It was a byproduct of the Missouri Compromise. Population growth in the West had been stymied by the almost constant bloody Indian warfare in the region from the end of the Revolution through the War of 1812 and by the high land prices and large minimum parcels required by the Land Ordinance of 1785. 

 

When a financial panic swept the nation in 1819 it became impossible for most would-be settlers to borrow the money needed to legally buy the land. To escape high land prices mostly Scotch-Irish pioneers often pushed out ahead of land surveyors and squatted on land. When the government caught up with them they argued that their improvements on the land should be subtracted from the cost. They were often displaced and pushed further west. 

 

A deed to land in Indiana sold to James Benton McMurry in 1831 under the terms of the Land Act of 1820.  Note the document is attested to and initialed by President Andrew Jackson (or by a designee in the Executive Mansion under his authority) which was required by law for all sale of Federal land.  An example of the administrative minutia early Presidents were saddled with.
 

To make settlement more affordable and thus to reduce squatting, the new act reduced the minimum tract from 160 to 80 acres, a manageable family farm in the generally rich soil of the West. 

 

Buying land exclusively on credit—as was common among land speculators—was eliminated. The price was reduced from $1.65 (set in 1804) to $1.25 per acre with a relatively affordable $100 down payment. The very poorest, who probably could not even afford the necessary tools and equipment necessary to bring the land into production, were eliminated, but the cost was low enough to be manageable by many. 

 

Although speculators could still form land companies and buy large blocks of tracts, the recurring financial panics over the next few years drove many to bankruptcy while owner-operated farms could endure hard times on a subsistence basis. In the end most of the farmland in the region sold at, or not much above the Federal price. 

 

New Salem in Illinois was first settled in 1828 and was typical of the communities that sprang up across the West with liberalized land sale policies.  Even there not everyone could afford land.  Newcomer Abraham Lincoln from Indiana had to hire out as a wood cutter, river boatman, and store clerk.

The success of the policy was astounding. Illinois, for instance, had a population of about 55,000 in 1820. Over the next 40 years the population doubled every ten years to almost 900,000 in 1860. 

 

Land sales were vigorous enough that even at the reduced price enough revenue was generated to operate the nearly skeletal Federal government. In fact, they provided enough income that they were largely responsible for the Federal Debt to be completely paid off and retired—if only briefly—during the administration of Andrew Jackson. 

 

Such a rapid explosion for population also had a dramatic effect on government as new Congressional seats were allotted with every new census giving the West considerable regional clout. By the eve of the Civil War the states covered by the act were no longer on the frontier. They were well settled, prosperous, and with the advantages of easy access to markets via the great river system and the new railroads, had become the breadbasket to the nation.

Fugitive Slave Law Divided the Nation

A U.S. Marshall and a slave catcher attempt to capture a Black woman and child under the Fugitive Slave Act.

The infamous Fugitive Slave Act was passed by Congress on September 18, 1850.  It was one part of a larger Compromise of 1850 meant to ease tensions between slave and free states.  It did not work.  In fact, attempts at enforcement of the law enraged many Northerners who would otherwise have been content to let slavery be out of sight and mind in the South.

A Fugitive Slave Law had been in the Federal statutes since 1793.  It was an enforcement provision for Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution, which required the return of runaway slaves and was passed at a time when slavery was still legal in most states on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line.  But one by one Northern states had abandoned slavery.  Within the next decade the last slaves in some gradual emancipation plans would be freed.  Many Northern states had fairly sizable populations of Free Blacks.  Southern states, however, with the introduction of a widespread cotton economy, were more dependent on slavery than ever and the end of the international slave trade had cut off a supply of fresh bodies from Africa and the Caribbean.

Slavery was not only disappearing in the North, public opinion was swinging against it, particularly in New England and those states carved from the old Northwest Territories which were heavily settled by the New England diaspora.  Many states had taken actions to blunt the enforcement of the 1793 law.  Several had enacted Personal Liberty Laws by which a captured Negro could demand a jury trial where the claimant would have to prove that he or she was legal owner.  This was to prevent free Blacks in the North from being kidnapped and taken south to be sold into slavery—a common practice among slave chasers.  Other laws forbad state and local officials from rendering assistance to slave chasers or the use of local jails to hold them.  This practice was upheld by an 1842 Supreme Court decision, Prigg v. Pennsylvania, which essentially gutted enforcement of the 1793 law in much of the North.

Beyond legal barriers, there was growing popular resistance to slavery which manifested itself in the network of the Underground Railroad which actively assisted fleeing slaves to reach either Canada or settle in relatively safe portions of the North under assumed identities.  In several cities citizens actively interfered with slave catchers.  All of this, of course, infuriated the South.

The Underground Railroad abetting and harboring escaped slaves on their flight to freedom was a manifestation of growing opposition to slavery and slave catchers in the north.

Other issues were also inflaming North/South tensions, principally whether slavery would be extended in the vast territories obtained in the Mexican War.  The South wanted all of the land opened to slavery—or failing that something like an extension of the Missouri Compromise line that would allow territories to the south of the same or similar line eventually be admitted to the Union as slave states.  They even hoped to possibly divide Texas into two or more states and break off southern California somewhere north of Los Angeles.  That would give the South and slave holding border states control of the Senate, and by extension the Federal government itself. 

Northerners, on the other hand, wanted to exclude slavery from all newly organized territories and keep Texas and California unified, with the understanding that California would enter the Union as a free state, balancing slave holding Texas.

Henry Clay arguing for compromise on the Senate floor.

President Zachary Taylor, a hero of the Mexican War and himself a Louisiana planter and slave holder, stood with the North in opposing the extension of slavery.  His Whig party was unraveling over the issue.  Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky, a borderer state Whig who had long dreamed of the Presidency, set out to craft a compromise early in the year.  But with the president of his own party in opposition, the compromise fell apart in the Senate.

When the new session of Congress convened in March Democrat Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Massachusetts Whig Daniel Webster—Clay’s long-time rival for party leadership—advanced a modified version of Clay’s compromise proposals.  It varied from Clay’s failed version mostly in the disposal of the thorny issue of Texas.  The new version was mostly crafted by Douglas and incorporated the Democratic platform principle of Popular Sovereignty—that residents of Territories should be able to decide by voting whether or not slavery would be allowed—for the two proposed Territories carved from Texas claims—Utah and New Mexico.  Mormon controlled Utah would definitely opt to be a free territory, and everyone knew that it was unlikely that sparsely populated New Mexico, which was totally unsuitable to a plantation economy, would elect to allow slavery.  California would be admitted to the Union undivided as a free state.

New Englanders turned on their long-time political hero Daniel Webster for agreeing to include a tough Fugitive Slave Law in a new compromise to "save the Union."

Debate was fierce.  Most northern Whigs led by William Steward of New York were bitterly opposed because the package did not include Wilmot Proviso, a long sought provision that would have permanently banned slavery from territory acquired as a result of the Mexican War.  Even though no new slave Territories or States were created, the application of the principle of Popular Sovereignty left the possibility open in the future.  They were also outraged by the inclusion of the Fugitive Slave Act.

On the other hand, Southern firebrands led by John C. Calhoun were just as voraciously opposed because they did not get the division of California or any new slave holding Territories.  They also had to give up the continuation of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, although slavery itself would be preserved there.

In his last great political battle South Carolina's John C. Calhoun led the firebrands in opposition to the compromise because it didn't guarantee the extension of slavery.

Numerous alternative plans were advanced and beaten back.  Douglas and Webster, with the support of Clay, had to stitch together a Senate majority from Northern Democrats, moderate Southern Democrats, and Southern Whigs.  The opposition was split between two extremes, Northern Whigs on one hand, and southern firebrands on the other.

The compromise got a boost when Taylor died suddenly, and his Vice President Millard Fillmore ascended to the White House.  Fillmore was one of Webster’s few Northern Whig allies and supported the compromise.  Douglas separated out five bills from an original omnibus bill, and carefully crafted narrow majorities for each, with each bill getting support from a slightly different combination of interests.  It was precarious, but it worked.

Rising Democratic star and leading proponent of Popular Sovereignty Stephen A. Douglas devised the plan to split the compromise into separate parts and build different majorities in support of each.

The bills, passed independently between September 9 and 20 and quickly signed into law by President Fillmore included:

• The admission of California as a free state.
• The abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia.
• The organization Territory of New Mexico (including present-day Arizona) and the Territory of Utah under the rule of popular sovereignty.
• The enactment of a Fugitive Slave Act requiring all U.S. citizens to assist in the return of runaway slaves.
• Texas ceding much of its western land claims in exchange for of $10 million to pay off its national debt.

Douglas and Webster thought they had crafted a compromise which saved the Union.  Instead, they reaped the whirlwind, especially because of the onerous provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act.

The Act made any Federal Marshal or other official who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave liable to a fine of $1,000. Local law enforcement was required to arrest anyone suspected of being a runaway slave on no more evidence than a claimant’s sworn testimony of ownership. The suspected slave could not ask for a jury trial or testify on his or her own behalf. Anyone aiding a runaway slave by providing food or shelter was subject to a six month imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Officers who captured a fugitive slave were entitled to a bonus or promotion for their work. Slave owners only needed to supply an affidavit to a Federal Marshal to capture an escaped slave and since a suspected slave was not eligible for a trial to prove his status, many free blacks could be conscripted into slavery.

Outrage in the North, particularly in New England was fierce.  Daniel Webster, the political hero of the region for more than 40 years, was excoriated as a traitor.  The hand of Abolitionists, a previously despised minority, was greatly strengthened.  Some Abolitionists even contemplated Northern secession from the union in response to the Act and the still open possibility of the extension of slavery into new territories.  Even Ralph Waldo Emerson flirted with the idea. 

Abolitionists sometimes published warnings interfering with slave chasers, a source of outrage in the South.

Citizens of Boston and other towns organized to oppose slave catchers and interfere with their work in every way possible.  Handbills were circulated warning free Blacks that the local police were cooperating with slave catchers under the law.

Politically, the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Law spelled the end of the Whigs as a national party.  Northern Whigs swung to the new Free Soil Party and four years later into the new Republican Party alongside anti-slavery northern Democrats.  Southern Whigs were re-absorbed into the Democratic Party from which most of them had originated.  Democrats were riven by sectional conflicts themselves.

Whatever “peace” might have been bought fell apart four years later as the future of Kansas turned on the principle of Popular Sovereignty leading to a local civil war as slave holders and Free Soilers rushed to the Territory to attempt to control the Territorial Government.

Anti-ICE protestors echo the outrage against the Fugitive Slave Law.

From a modern perspective, it is useful to compare the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act to the Arizona anti-immigration legislation of a few years back which became a model for even more draconian legislation in Tea Party dominated states—most of them in the Deep South. There were many parallels including requiring local police to act on mere suspicion, and the denial of detainees of adequate rights to prove their status, thus inevitably leading to the detention deportation of legal immigrants and even citizens.  And citizens aiding suspected illegals would be criminalized themselves.  Many of the more draconian provisions of the anti-immigration laws were gutted by Federal Courts, but other onerous provisions remain in force and right wing zealots continually demand harsher measures.  Some armed “volunteers” took up patrolling the border.

Donald Trump  made the deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants and the erection of an impenetrable boarder wall the center piece of his first campaign and government policy.  Meanwhile, many Americans have been revolted and repelled by the ugly rhetoric.  Regional and philosophic divisions are sharper than ever.  Trump and his allies are now encouraging violence against opponents and hare even threatened assassination.   With his full knowledge, approval, and backing he fostered the open rebellion and attempted coup d’état on January 6, 2021.  Now facing multiple state and Federal indictments, the former Cheeto in Charge is the runway leader for renomination by the Republican Party and once again is threatening judges, prosecutors, state and local election officials, and insufficiently servile GOP dissidents.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.