| OCR Text |
Show MILITARY BOUNTY LAND POLICIES 261 Pattern of Ownership A natural question is whether the concentration of ownership that existed from the very beginning in the counties of the two military tracts of Ohio had any effect upon the later pattern of ownership and the proportion of owner operated farms to those that were tenant operated. No categorical answer can be given. In the first place, few counties were wholly within one or the other of the tracts. Secondly, other factors such as the amount of speculation in other counties and the grants of public land for the construction of canals and roads played a major role in shaping subsequent ownership patterns. Yet some results of this early concentration of ownership are apparent. On his tour through the Virginia Military Tract in 1807 Fortescue Cuming was impressed with the "elegant stone house" of Colonel Mc-Arthur, the "neat house and handsome improvement" of Henry Massie, and the "elegant seat" of Thomas Worthington. He also observed that the area was thinly settled because the lands "belonged to wealthy proprietors, who either hold them at a very high price, or will divide them into convenient sized farms." Twelve years later David Thomas, traveling through the same region, wrote that some of the finest land was undeveloped, that for miles he saw no houses, and that the irregular method of laying out farm boundaries had been a constant source of litigation "of the most baneful consequences." Though he was making the trip to seek out land for speculation he was troubled by "the evils of monopolizing wealth" he found so extensive in the tract. He noted one farm of 2,100 acres which was operated by tenants who paid 15 bushels of corn per acre in cultivation. The "unsettled state of titles" deterred him from making any investment in the tract. Thus tenancy came early to Ohio.33 33 F. Cumming, Sketches of a Tour to the Western Country Through the States of Ohio and Kentucky, reprinted in Reuben Gold Twaites, Early Western Travels (32 vols., Cleveland, 1904-07), IV, 212-15; William T. Hutchinson, summing up his detailed study of the military bounty land policy of Virginia and the United States, wrote that "Tangled land claims, uncertain boundaries, sales for taxes and lawsuits crowd the history of the District. Large holdings, absentee ownership and tenant farming were the rule, and towns often arose, or vegetated upon papers, as a part of the efforts of the speculators to increase their profits or mitigate their losses."34 The United States Census of 1860 and 1880 show statistical results of the concentration of speculation and land ownership in the military tracts. In 1860, out of 88 counties, seven wholly or partly within the military tracts contained 58 percent of the farms over 1,000 acres and 38 percent of the farms of 500 to 1,000 acres. Two decades later the same counties still had 35 percent and 23 percent of these two classes of farms. In 1880 the percentage of tenant operated farms in Ohio was 19 whereas in Madison County wholly within the Virginia Military Tract 51 percent were tenant operated; Madison County contained the greatest number of large farms of all the counties. Fayette County, also within the military tracts had 37 percent of its farms tenant operated and 11 large farms. Pickaway County had 32 percent of its farms tenant operated and 19 large farms. Franklin County, which contained the home farm of Lucas Sullivant, had 31 percent of its farms tenant operated. On the other hand, Ross County, the home of Nathaniel Massie and Thomas Worthington, had 19 large farms, the highest average size of farms of all counties, but had only 19 percent of its farms tenant operated. The average size of farms for all seven counties in the military tracts was 129 acres as compared with 99 for the state; the percentage of tenant operated farms was 27 as compared with 19. Other factors doubtless David Thomas, Travels through the Western Country in the Summer of 1816 (Auburn, N.Y., 1819), 97-98, 104. 34 Hutchinson, "The Bounty Lands," p. 248. |
