OCR Text |
Show WHOSE PUBLIC LANDS? the reforms in land disposal the West wanted and expected; these included preemption, graduation of the price of land, donations to settlers, and cession. Furthermore, as long as the public debt was unpaid, distribution should be postponed. Pettis expressed a western viewpoint that was long to prevail, saying that "the people of the new States desire to see some reasonable prospect for the arrival of the period when the title of the United States to lands within their several limits may be extinguished." Only when the debt was retired would it be proper to consider distributing the proceeds from the public lands.17 An unusual number of House members spoke on the question, indicating the central position land problems were taking in American politics. Finally, after a month of discussion, the House approved the resolution. A select committee was appointed; it brought in the expected report recommending distribution.18 Congress had refused to grant preemption and to concede lower prices for land long on the market, and also was threatening to halt further surveys and not to open additional land to settlement (the Foote Resolution); smarting under the attack of eastern Congressmen, and contemplating what they regarded as outright neglect of their interests by Congress, spokesmen for the western states now took the offensive. Governor Ninian Edwards of Illinois complained in 1828 that although the new states had been admitted on a basis of absolute equality with the old, they were not equal. The central government had retained the public lands, managed them, extracted revenue from them and, as a result, achieved power and influence over the states' political and economic lives that it did not have in the other states. Edwards maintained that the Constitution gave the Federal government no power to exercise control over the public lands in a 17 Ibid., p. 486. nlbid., pp. 477-540; House Reports, 21st Cong., 1st sess., July 1, 1831, Vol. Ill, No. 312 (Serial No. 201), p. 8. state after its admission to the Union. The bargain made with the states--exemption of public lands from taxation for 5 years after their sale in return for grants for education- was binding only until admission, not thereafter, for the states were to be equal. After admission the public lands surely must belong to the states. The Legislature of Illinois proceeded more slowly than its Governor, memorializing Congress in 1829 for graduation, preemption, or donations to settlers, and urging that cession of the lands to the states would solve the land question so far as the Federal government was concerned.19 Outright cession was asked by the Legislatures of Alabama, Indiana, Louisiana, and Missouri, in addition to Illinois, between 1828 and 1833. A memorial of the Indiana Legislature was particularly sharp in tone, insisting that Indiana be placed on a plane of absolute equality with the Original States. This State, being a sovereign, free, and independent State, has the exclusive right to the soil and eminent domain of all the unappropriated lands . . . which right was reserved for her by the State of Virginia, in the deed of cession . . . being confirmed and established by the articles of confederacy and the Constitution of the United States. The Indiana Representatives in Congress were instructed and the Senators were requested to exert every effort to procure from Congress the cession of the public lands, which would place Indiana on equal footing with the Original States.20 Proposal to Limit Sales The jealousy and hostility of the old states, it seemed to the West, reached its height in 1829 when Samuel Augustus Foote, Senator from Connecticut, brought forth a proposal that public land sales be limited for a time to those already offered for sale and 191 have followed here Raynor G. Wellington, The Political and Sectional Influence of the Public Lands, 1828-1842 (Boston, 1914), pp. 16 ff. 20 American State Papers, Public Lands, V, 630 |