| OCR Text |
Show LAND ORDINANCE OF 1785 67 policies in the 1780's. Settlers were allowed to prove up on 300 acres and pay the minimum price the law specified.17 Preemption had thus become a well-established feature of the land policies of the colonies and states by the time the Confederation had to grapple with the problem of land disposal. Squatters Prevail Land had been lavishly granted by all the Colonies outside of New England. Huge estates such as those of the Byrd, Carter, Livingston, Fairfax, and Rensselaer families had come into existence side by side with the many small holdings, all at a time when support of the governments came partly from quitrents. The faster lands were transferred to private ownership, the greater prospect there was for income from quitrents. But with the Revolution all this changed. Quit-rents were abolished just when the need for public revenue was growing. With an abundance of public land in prospect, the Continental Congress began to think of deriving an income from it, even though this would mean a sharp break with past colonial policy. Furthermore, it would require putting an end to squatting and intrusions on the public land. On September 22, 1783, before Congress actually owned an acre of land, it issued a proclamation forbidding settlement on or purchase of any land north of the Ohio River claimed by the Indians. Members of Congress were troubled at "the increase of feeble, disorderly and dispersed settlements in these remote and wide extended territories . . . the depravity of manners which they have a tendency to produce; the endless perplexities in which they must involve the administration of the affairs of the United States. . . ."18 When the proclamation failed to deter people 17 Acts of Dec. 21, 1784, March 29, 1788, and April 10, 1792, Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1781-1790 (Philadelphia, 1793), pp. 100, 592. 18 Journals of the Continental Congress (35 vols., Washington, 1904-1937), XXXV, 602, 694. from settling north of the Ohio, Colonel Harmar was ordered to remove them and in 1785 with a small body of troops attempted to do so, but with little success. Congress then stepped in, instructed the authorities to stop the settlement of all unauthorized persons on the public lands and directed that the troops be used to drive off squatters wherever necessary. Again Colonel Harmar moved in, this time with a larger force, driving off the squatters, burning their cabins, rooting up their potatoes and other crops, destroying their fences, and forcing them to flee across the river to Kentucky and Virginia. But as soon as the troops were withdrawn the squatters returned, rebuilt their burned cabins, and resumed their farm-making operations, quite disdainful of the threat of ejectment.19 Squatting could not be controlled. Among the thousands of people pouring into Ohio were many settlers who had earlier penetrated to the frontier parts of Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and western Virginia. There they had squatted upon undeveloped land with impunity, expecting either to get the value of their improvements if they were subsequently found to be on absentee-owned land, or to journey to Richmond to make an entry of their land and to take title when they were ready to do so. Squatting on the land of the Federal government to them was no different; it had all the justifications that squatting on colonial or state land had. Neither the Ordinance of 1785 nor that of 1787 touched upon the prevalence of squatting upon the public lands, but the problem was nevertheless regarded as a serious one needing attention. Prevailing government opinion was strongly averse to the practice. Henry Knox, the Secretary of War, thought squatting was one of the most pressing questions facing the government because it threatened the expected income from the public lands. Speaking in 1787 of the "usurpa- 19 John Bach McMaster, History of the People of the United States (8 vols., New York, 1883-1913), III, 107. |
