Roy M. Robbins, Our Landed Heritage: The Public Domain, 1776-1936 (1942).
CHAPTER X
INDUSTRIAL-AGRARIAN ALLIANCEPublic land legislation was one of the most significant factors in the rapid economic development of the United States in the period, 1841 to 1854. Federal largess in the encouragement of this development seemed to know no bounds. Most of this land legislation was made possible by two factors: the ever-increasing political strength of the Mississippi Valley West, and a reversal of the traditional political position of the North Atlantic States which began to vision in the West great opportunities for the investment of capital and vast markets for manufactured goods -- the very opportunities which Henry Clay had pointed out two decades before in his so-called American System.
The first in this series of laws which attracted considerable support from the East was the Mineral Lands Act of 1846. Perhaps it was too much to expect that America should continue to be blessed with the policy of prior exploration of mineral resources, which obtained during the 'thirties and early 'forties. The publicity attendant upon the geological reports attracted considerable capital to these western resources. While the mining industry in the lead region of Wisconsin and the copper region of Lake Superior was becoming established Congress might have evolved an intelligent mineral land policy. But many of the geologists, receiving little encouragement from the federal government, were quick to desert the government service for positions with the nascent mining companies. A combination of frontier interests anxious for development, and eastern capitalists hungry for profits, forced Congress in 1846 to abandon the leasing system with respect to mineral lands. The age of exploitation of natural resources other than farm land had arrived.
Since the enactment of the Land Ordinance of 1785, it had been the policy of the federal government to reserve all mineral lands from sale. The Act of March 3, 1807, inaugurated a leasing system providing a 10 per cent royalty on lead-ore lands, though this policy was not actually put into effect until 1822. No doubt this decision to lease the mineral lands originated in experiences during the undeclared war of 1798 [151] against France, for at that time it became apparent that the country was deficient in lead materials so essential to carrying on a war. Desultory and unsystematic management characterized the period between 1822 and 1846. While every major land act specifically exempted mineral lands from entry, nevertheless, without specific knowledge of the location and extent of the resources, many acres of valuable mineral land were appropriated as "agricultural land." Trespassing and plundering were frequent. As early as 1842, there were 44,117 fraudulent entries on the mineral lands of southwestern Wisconsin.1 The frontier army found itself unable to cope with the situation.
In 1846, the Land Commissioner brought the problem to the attention of Congress. He pointed out that the leasing system had never paid for its operation, and advised that mineral lands be thrown open to entry at the public sale, at private sale, and by preemption. It was better to realize something on these lands than to have them appropriated illegally by settlers, or to have them plundered by trespassers and thus rendered unfit for sale. Undoubtedly the pressure of the western protest against continuing the leasing system also influenced the government to recommend the change. The State of Michigan in 1846 took a firm stand against the perpetuation of a system of "patroonery" on her territory, and insisted that all mineral lands be sold and rendered taxable by her.2
In fact, the only objection raised to the proposed abrogation of the leasing system was the fact, or the presumption of the fact, that certain individuals had already obtained extensive tracts in the mineral region, and that these private interests would monopolize the resources if they were offered for sale. Nevertheless, Congress passed an act abolishing the leasing system and instituting a general sales policy.3 This Act of July 11, 1846, the first of a series, applied only to the lead lands in Illinois, Arkansas, and in the territories of Wisconsin and Iowa. Preemption would be permitted after the auction but at double the minimum. To the general public the minimum price was to be $5 per acre. The purchaser might take as much land as he chose but not less than forty acres, the smallest legal subdivision. Those already in possession of leases might buy their holdings at $2.50 per acre, provided the claimants took the whole tract covered by their respective permits. The next concession [152] to the mining interests immediately followed. The Act of March 1, 1847, set up the Lake Superior district and provided for the sale of lands at $5 per acre.4 The Act of March 3, 1847, created the Wisconsin district, extending to it the same privileges.5 In 1850, the attorney general ruled that iron lands were not included, though it was obvious that it would be difficult to make a classification.
This new mineral land policy which envisaged proper surveys and classification was hardly inaugurated when the gold rush to California set in. Attempts to establish a similar policy in the Pacific West, and later in the Rocky Mountain West, were futile. As a matter of law, these lands were a part of the public domain, but in face of the conditions attendant upon the mad rush the government could do little but stand by and wait for developments. Eastern business interests thwarted all attempts on the part of Congress to bring about regulation, for precious metals provided a business stimulant of incalculable value. While the placer miner still reigned supreme, nevertheless, the mining corporation was in the field. The industrial capitalist with his coterie of companies was getting a foothold in Michigan and Wisconsin; the West Coast frontier was not far beyond. It is little wonder that the South, with its vanishing opportunities even in good agricultural land for its plantation system, looked with suspicion upon this new order of things.
Next in line with a liberalized mineral land policy came new settlement laws which together with the great Preemption Act of 1841 were to attract population to the vacant areas of the West. One of these new laws was the Townsites Act of 1844. It must not be supposed that all of the American West was settled by farmers. A town frontier had always commanded attention; in fact, the townsite interest in the 'thirties became a mania and was one of the conditions contributing to the Panic of 1837. In order to regulate and encourage the settlement of western townsites, Congress passed on May 23, 1844 an act giving to towns preemption rights similar to those granted to individual squatters under the Act of 1841.6 While this act was not important at first, nevertheless, later history records the fact that a number of western towns took advantage of its generous provisions to add many acres of lands to their corporation limits. [153]
Other settlement laws were designed to attract population to the far-distant territories of the United States. While the general homestead movement was progressing slowly and painfully along a thorny path, the principle was being applied with some success in the distant territories of Florida, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico. In order to encourage settlement in East Florida, which was desirable for a number of reasons but especially for the purpose of national defense, Congress by Act of August 4, 1842, provided that any person being the head of a family or a single man over the age of eighteen, who should make a settlement with continued residence thereon, should be entitled to 160 acres of land. The act was to apply to only 200,000 acres of land.
No sooner was diis privilege extended to Florida, than agitation began to extend it to Oregon. In the early settlement of Tennessee, it was pointed out, the government of North Carolina extended a bounty of land to all citizens who might choose to migrate to the Cumberland -- now western Tennessee -- in order that the western settlements would be built up sufficiently to withstand Indian attacks.7 Senator George Badger of North Carolina used this same argument in 1850 in support of a donation to Oregon Territory.8 In order to discover the real origins of the Oregon Donation Act it is necessary, however, to go back to 1843. At that time, Senator Lewis F. Linn introduced a donation bill to encourage the settlement of the Oregon Country. Its preamble declared that "the title of the United States to Oregon is certain and will not be abandoned," and it provided for the erection of a line of forts to the mouth of the Columbia. Though the preamble was stricken out, it nevertheless received much support. Horace Greeley declared in the Tribune that "This undertaking is too barefaced. If we get off with $1,000,000 a year, even in the absence of trouble with England, we shall be lucky."9
It is interesting to note that Senators Clayton of Delaware, Buchanan of Pennsylvania, and Wright and Woodbury of Vermont voted for this bill at this time. Undoubtedly the expansionist motive was prominent in such support, although Greeley was surprised to find any Easterners voting for it.10 After the Columbia basin was finally obtained the main argument shifted back to the need for settlement to cope with [154] the Indians.11 The act was finally passed, on September 27,1850, granted to persons who were actual settlers prior to December 1, 1850, a donation of land -- 320 acres to each single man, and 640 acres to each married man. Such persons as should become settlers in Oregon between December 1, 1850, and December 1, 1853, were to be given grants -- 160 acres if single and 320 acres if married.
Residence and cultivation of the land for four consecutive years was necessary to secure a patent.12 The requirement of four years continued residence entailed so much hardship that in February 1853, tae Act °^ 1850 was amended to provide that title could pass after two years of residence, and the act was extended to December 1855. The next year all the provisions of the Oregon Act were extended to the Territory of Washington until December 1, 1855.13 Another measure similar to the Oregon Act extended donation privileges to the Territory of New Mexico.14 This last act had no expiration date and lasted until 1883. Furthermore, its terms provided for commutation to cash purchase upon the payment of $1.25 an acre.
The 200,000 acres comprising the armed-occupation donation to Florida were taken up by 1844, but, in spite of the number of entries under the Oregon, Washington, and New Mexican donations, this bounty was not as popular as might have been expected. Many administrative difficulties were encountered. Could the federal government have restricted its donations entirely to actual settlers, the donation legislation might have served as the experiment to test the doctrine of homesteading before it was extended to the nation at large.15
Attention also was called during the period of the 'forties to the millions of acres of lands in the Mississippi Valley which had been passed up by settlers because of the fear of floods. Hence the Swamp Lands Act of 1850. In the two decades immediately preceding the Civil War a few voices were raised in the interest of flood control on the Mississippi River. The result was the introduction of federal aid for reclamation. No one can doubt the integrity of some of the authorities who proposed this measure; but, on the other hand, certain exploitative and speculative interests were watching every opportunity to subvert any such well [155] mtentioned subsidies to their own profit. The integrity of some state governments, too, was not above reproach.
The Land Commissioner recommended in 1848 that the swamp lands along the Mississippi and in Florida be ceded to the states in which they lay, on condition that the proceeds be applied to reclaiming them, any balance to go to education and internal improvements.16
In 1850, one authority summed up the flood-control problem in this way: "When we survey the vast extent of country which pours its waters into the Mississippi, it is rather a matter of wonder and astonishment that any year should escape the destructive disasters of inundation. . . . As the country is opened and trodden and the timber removed, a greater quantity of water will be thrown into the channels of the rivers, and a higher rise may yet be expected than any which has for years occurred."17 From the funds obtained from the sale of the reclaimed land along the lower Mississippi it was proposed that a canal be built to carry off the excess water. Such reclamation would save losses annually of five or six million dollars worth of cotton and sugar, not to mention the losses in soil erosion and property damage.
One of the greatest problems of American economic development was thus clearly sensed and stated. The federal government responded by Act of March 2,1849, granting to Louisiana the submerged lands in the state in aid of the problem of flood control and reclamation. In 1850, Congress made the act general in application, ceding to the states in which they lay the swamp and overflowed lands, with the proviso that "the proceeds of said lands shall be applied, exclusively, so far as necessary, to the purpose of reclaiming said lands by means of levees and drains."18 The original plan was to grant only such lands as were marked on the government plots as "swamp and unfit for cultivation," but later the Land Commissioner was allowed to sell the lands without reference to the plots. This loophole in the law made possible one of the greatest land-grabs in the history of the public domain. Only a small part of the proceeds of the original grants ever went to the purposes for which they were intended. Millions of acres fell into the hands of speculators and politicians. State and local governments in almost every case displayed such ineptness, corruption, and general inefficiency, that one wonders at the congressional decision to extend this land-grant policy in any form.
Nor was the soldier forgotten in the bounties doled out by the federal government in this new era of land history. From the time of the American Revolutionary War, land grants had been made to encourage enlistments and to reward soldiers for valor during military service. Except for the Virginia military bounties of the Revolutionary War period, the first act to involve the public domain directly was that of 1812. However, in this act the bounties were not transferable and they had to be located in specific districts in Illinois, Arkansas, and Missouri. In 1837, a contemporary authority commenting on this bounty-land reserve, thought that "The disposition of this fine country for military bounties" had much retarded settlement. "It was a shortsighted and mistaken policy of the government that dictated this measure. Most of the titles have long since departed from the soldiers for whose benefit the donations were made. Many thousand quarter sections have been sold for taxes by the State, have fallen into the hands of monopolists, and are now past redemption."19 Heedless of past experience, Congress during the Mexican War period plunged recklessly ahead with this type of legislation until over 26,000,000 acres of land, an area greater than the State of Ohio, had been bestowed upon soldiers. And this was just the beginning, for the Civil War period was yet ahead.
In the period, 1846 to 1856, no less than four military bounty bills became law.20 The Act of 1847 provided that all noncommissioned officers and soldiers who had served in the Mexican War for not less than a year should receive a quarter section to be located on any part of the surveyed domain. In 1850 the bounty was extended to all who had served in the War of 1812 or in any Indian wars since 1790. The Act of 1852 gave warrants to all officers of militia, volunteers, etc., and further provided that all warrants were assignable. By act of Congress in 1855 a bounty of a quarter section was granted to any soldier, or his heirs, if he had served at least fourteen days in any war after 1790; an [157] amendatory act the following year extended the act to include soldiers of the Revolutionary War. As Professor Treat pertinently said, "Congress had become wonderfully appreciative of military service or else magnificently lavish in its grants of the public domain."21
The benevolent mood of the federal government was also extended to aid the state governments of the New West with that ever-burdensome problem of taxation, many of the newer states having complained that federal ownership of lands within their bounds robbed them of their just share of taxes. The first compact securing exemption from taxation was entered into between the State of Ohio and the United States in 1802. At that time it was agreed that the federal government should continue to dispose of the public lands, and that no state tax could be laid upon these lands until five years after purchase. Inasmuch as the credit system necessitated this arrangement, logically, it should have been abrogated in 1820 when the credit system was abolished. But such was not the case. Although this restriction was raised for the states entering the Union after 1820, it continued to apply to the states which entered the Union between 1802 and 1820. Finally, by Act of January 26, 1847, Congress agreed that those states admitted prior to the Land Act of 1820 might impose a tax upon all lands sold by the United States in these states from the day of the sale, provided that no state should impair the compact which declared that all lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without said states should never be taxed higher than lands belonging to persons residing therein.22
However, this Act of 1847 did not ease the more general problem: the new states were still unable to tax the vast areas of public lands within their boundaries. By the estimate of Senator Charles Sumner in 1849, the public land states, because of their inability to tax the lands of the general government, had lost $72,000,000. This argument of the vassalage of the new states was propounded in the 'thirties by advocates of Calhoun's movement for ceding the public lands to the states in which they were located. In the 'forties and 'fifties the new states used it with telling effect to obtain increased land bounties from Congress for internal improvements and public education. By 1854, the Old South, realizing that the benefits to that section from the public lands were [158] diminishing rapidly, again became interested in cession.23 But it was too late; extensive land grants were bringing about rapid settlement of vacant lands.
Perhaps an even more significant example of federal largess to the new states is to be found in the increased aid to the promotion of public education. Senator Stephen A. Douglas succeeded in inserting in the Act of August 14,1848, for the organization of Oregon Territory, a grant of section 36 in addition to section 16 in each township to be used by that township for common schools.24 Thereafter the grant of these two sections in each township was made in the organization of every new territory. Of the 500,000 acres turned over to the states by the Distribution-Preemption Act of September 4, 1841, for internal improvements, five states, Wisconsin, Alabama, Iowa, Oregon, and later, Nevada, were able to utilize this grant exclusively for the support of common schools. The Swamp Lands Acts of 1849 and 1850, while intended for the drainage and reclamation of lands, were applied in many western states for the purposes of common education. Thus the new era of the 'forties eased the taxation problem for much of the new West.
But the West soon found itself no longer alone in the field of those who sought educational bounties. Beginning in the early 'forties a movement gained way in the North Atlantic States for the establishment of agricultural colleges. The first issue of the American Agriculturalist in 1842 carried an account of steps being taken toward the establishment of the first agricultural school and emphasized the needs for similar institutions. Before long the federal government was being asked to aid in the cause. In the 'fifties a number of states petitioned Congress for public land endowments for this purpose. County and state agricultural societies helped to promote the movement. Many of the eastern states, having received little from the federal government in outright grants, saw in this movement a means of securing a portion of the public domain before it was gone.
The movement came to a head in 1857 when Representative Justin S. Morrill of Vermont introduced a bill providing for a grant to establish agricultural and mechanical arts colleges. It immediately met opposition. [159] The South argued that it was inexpedient and unconstitutional; some of the western states felt that inasmuch as the grant to the states was to be made on a basis of population it was little more than Clay's distribution idea of the 'thirties in new dress. They felt that the grants to the eastern states would have to be made by means of scrip, which would lead to much speculation and to the appropriation and holding off the market of the best remaining lands in the West. But in spite of the opposition, the bill passed the House on April 22, 1858, by the close vote of 105 to 100.25 It passed the Senate by an equally close vote. President Buchanan, however, vetoed the measure on the ground that: (1) it was unconstitutional, (2) it deprived the government of much-needed revenue, (3) it would tend to make the states dependent upon the federal government, (4) it would set up colleges in competition with existing educational institutions, and (5) it could not compel states to use the funds for the specified purpose if the states chose to do otherwise.26 There were other land-grant measures during the Buchanan administration, but southern opposition was so strong that none was successful.
But all this aid to the development of the West dwindles into insignificance when compared to the vast patrimony of land granted in aid of building western transportational facilities. In truth, next to the settler who had received unbounded consideration in the Preemption Act of 1841, the western railroad corporation received just as much attention -- if not more. Henry Clay, in 1825, while speaking in favor of extending Jefferson's National Road to the westward, declared that this national internal improvement had been of incalculable value to the country: "Settlement had been multiplied -- buildings of all kinds erected -- villages had sprung up as if by enchantment----The effect had been a great addition to the value of property, and an important increase of the wealth of these states through which this great public work had been constructed."27 But notwithstanding Clay's unyielding campaign for federal subsidization by means of his distribution plan, the period from 1815 to 1840 was characterized rather by the efforts of the individual states and corporations. It is true that there was some aid in the form of land-grant subsidization to such projects as the Miami Canal, the [160] Wabash Canal, and the Illinois Canal, but these exceptions did not prove the rule. Even as early as 1825 the West had begun to clamor for alternate sections to aid in the construction of improvements, but through the Jacksonian era the meager fruits were indeed discouraging. Not until the 'forties was there a popular revival of the Jeffersonian principle of federal aid, and not until 1850 was the principle actually put into legislation.
The ultimate success of the federal land-subsidization principle in the passage of the Illinois Land Grant Act of 1850 was primarily due to the increasing interest, on the part of both the North Atlantic States and the South Atlantic States, in the potential resources of the Mississippi Valley. The Memphis Convention of 1845, presided over by John C. Calhoun, the Chicago Convention of 1847, attended by Horace Greeley, and the St. Louis Convention of 1849, inspired by Thomas Hart Benton, illustrated the growing national interest in railroad construction, particularly interest in building up a system which could later be connected with the Atlantic Coast. The plan to donate to Asa Whitney a grant of land sixty miles wide from Lake Superior to the Pacific Coast to aid in constructing a transcontinental railroad provoked much interest and led to wide discussion of federal aid. Even Calhoun at the Memphis Convention flirted with the federal land-grant idea, contending that a quid pro quo was only fair where real benefit was obtained. More than that, he proposed that a bounty might be afforded to the railroads by allowing them to secure iron duty free.28
There were, however, certain interests that remained staunchly opposed : representatives from the Atlantic Coast who held that land grants to western interests violated the rights of the old states, and Southerners who, failing to follow Calhoun, deemed the whole principle unconstitutional. The laboring factions of the North Atlantic States in the annual Industrial Congress of 1848 took a firm stand against the proposed Whitney grant, declaring it "an attempt to commit a flagrant wrong against the people."29 In 1848, President Polk vetoed the so-called Wisconsin Improvement Bill which appropriated one-half million dollars for the improvement of numerous rivers and harbors lying within the limits and jurisdiction of several states, on the ground that such subsidization was unconstitutional. Notwithstanding these opposition [161] elements, in 1850 sufficient votes were obtained from the Atlantic States particularly from the North Atlantic, to force through the first great land subsidy.
The success of this land-subsidy measure was due to the efforts of Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois.30 With the Erie Railroad rapidly forcing its way into the Great Lakes region, and with the lower Mississippi Valley interested in the proposed Mobile and Ohio Railroad, Douglas saw the opportunity of gaining the support of these interests for his proposed Illinois Central Railroad. The Massachusetts Western Railroad having just connected with the Erie, Douglas would not only have much support in New York State, but would also gain the support of Daniel Webster, who, incidentally, was personally interested in western land speculation as well as in railroads.31
Perhaps some reference to the debates in Congress will aid one to understand better the votes for and against the land-grant subsidy. Senator Douglas, arguing for the proposal on May 3,1848, declared that lands of central Illinois had been in the market for twenty-two years and had not sold, primarily because they were situated on large prairies distant from markets and devoid of timber. The building of the railroad would enable the government to dispose readily of all the alternate sections at $2.50 per acre.32 Nathaniel Niles of Vermont objected on the grounds that the bill was unconstitutional. John Crittenden of Kentucky replied that a precedent had been established way back in 1796 when Congress gave Colonel Zane a grant of land to make a footpath in Ohio.
The question was raised: Why should not grants be made also to the old states ? Some doubt was expressed as to whether the grant would enhance the value of government lands. Benton of Missouri felt that the land should be brought into cultivation as soon as possible, and stated his sincere belief that railroad land grants constituted the answer.33 Andrew P. Butler of South Carolina claimed that as the Nile became the god of the Egyptians and worshipped by them, so the Mississippi was now becoming the god of America. Crittenden of Kentucky challenged the idea that government bounties had been tending westward, [162] insisting rather that the means of the government had too long been spent upon the Atlantic frontier. Calhoun of South Carolina made a long speech in favor of the bill. And Douglas, in reply to the argument that speculators and capitalists would get hold of the grant, offered assurances that this would not be the case, inasmuch as the grant would remain in the hands of the State of Illinois until the work was completed. With these brief arguments the bill passed the Senate, May 3, 1848. But the resistance of the Atlantic Coast States prevented its passage in the House. Not until 1850, after considerable logrolling, was the bill forced through that chamber. The act was approved September 20, 1850.34
The munificence of diis land-grant subsidy attracted the attention of certain New York capitalists who proposed to the governor of Illinois that they take over the construction of the road in return for the donated lands. The road was to be built by July 1854, according to the specified standards of the Massachusetts Western Road.35 On March 22, 1851, this company accepted through its president, Robert Schuyler, the contract from the state. The grant consisted of alternate sections of 640 acres, six miles in width, on each side of this road, a total of 3,840 acres per mile. The final location of the road determined its length at 670 miles, so the aggregate subsidy amounted to 2,572,800 acres. The railroad [163] was completed by 1856. In comparison, the total grant to the Mobile and Ohio Railroad comprised 1,156,659 acres.
The passage of the Act of 1850 was heralded throughout the country as the advent of a new era. The editor of Hunt's Merchants' Magazine pointed out that with the completion of the Michigan and Southern Railroad, New York City would be connected via Chicago and Cairo with Mobile. The editor exclaimed: "New York will then have a direct connection with the extreme South, through the whole extent of that valley, which, within the lives of some now living, will be the center of the commerce and industry of the continent. All these roads have an immense number of lateral connections with all the important localities, and all contribute not only to the revenues of the Erie Road, but to the trade and welfare of the commercial emporium -- New York."36 It is therefore not surprising that most of the votes in the House from New York and Massachusetts went for the Douglas bill. From Illinois came the happy observation that that state would be connected with the dry-goods marts of New York on the one hand, and with the southern agricultural marts on the other.37 To the editor of De Bow's Commercial Review at New Orleans it was observed that the benefits of this act to the Mobile and Ohio Railroad would be "fully proved by enabling the agriculturalists of western Kentucky and Tennessee, and northern Mississippi, and Alabama, to crop their fields and place their products in the Mobile market twelve to twenty days earlier than can be done from the states north of the Ohio."38 Which of these interests was to benefit most remained to be seen.
The Act of 1850 opened a new era of land disposition and settlement through the agency of the railroad, an era which lasted until 1871 and during which Congress granted away some 129 million acres of land. In 1852, Congress passed a general right-of-way act, granting to any railroad corporation within the next ten years a one hundred foot right of way through the public domain, with the privilege of using timber and of obtaining additional land for stations. This act provided that the railroads must be completed within the next fifteen years. Together with the land-grant subsidy to the Illinois Central, it literally brought a barrage of land-grant subsidy bills into the Senate, though most of [164] these were killed in the House. However, by Act of June 10, 1852, Missouri was given 1,764,711 acres for aid in the construction of two railroads in that state. And in this act the section requiring the state to reimburse the federal government for lands sold, in case of default, was omitted. By the Act of February 3,1853, Arkansas and Missouri received by another grant 2,682,171 acres. By the Act of June 29,1854, Minnesota Territory received a land subsidy only to lose it because of the uncon-stitutionality of a grant to a territory.39
At this point in the mad scramble for land-grant subsidies, President Pierce made known his determined stand against any further grants. Before 1854, over thirty million acres of land had been withdrawn from public sale with a view to applications for railroad land grants pending in Congress. Pierce boldly abrogated all outstanding withdrawal orders, pointing out that after a quarter century of railroad building, only 17,000 miles had actually been built. He called attention to the enormous absorption of capital withdrawn from the ordinary channels of business, the extravagant rates of interest, and the bankruptcies. "Can it be doubted," he concluded, "that the tendency is to run to excess in this matter? Is it wise to augment this excess by encouraging hopes of sudden wealth expected to flow from magnificent schemes dependent upon the action of Congress? Does the spirit which has produced such results need to be stimulated or checked? Is it not the better rule to leave all these works to private enterprise, regulated, and, when expedient, aided, by the cooperation of States? If constructed by private capital, the stimulant and the check go together, and furnish a salutary restraint against speculative schemes and extravagance. But it is manifest that, with the most effective guards, there is danger of going too fast and too far."40
For the next two years Pierce's warning was heeded, but with the completion of the Illinois Central in 1856, the western states renewed their drive for federal aid. The result was that in 1856 and 1857 Con--gress yielded to the extent of granting subsidies to eight western states (Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota), an aggregate of 19,678,179 acres, to aid in the construction of forty-five railroads.41 In spite of the Panic of 1857, millions [165] of acres of land were withdrawn from sale to subsidize 4,649 miles of railroads under the acts of 1856 and 1857. So great was the public pressure against these government withdrawals, that the Land Commissioner in 1858 recommended that settlers be allowed on the reserved sections any time before the public sale.42 Of the tremendous amount of land that was withdrawn -- possibly as much as 100 million acres -- 18,590,000 acres had been restored by 1860.43 Here the matter of land grants to states for aid in railroad construction rested until the Lincoln administration.
Up to 1854, it should be noted, the opposition to subsidies in aid of construction of railroads in the Mississippi Valley states had stemmed mainly from that democratic force known as the Land Reform movement. Horace Greeley had been bitterly attacking the whole policy. In 1852, Daniel Webster, asked how he reconciled his advocacy of land-grant subsidies with his stand for homesteading, replied that he sincerely believed that the two principles were not at odds, that land grants made the public lands more valuable.44 To which Greeley retorted:
"We do not agree with Mr. Webster as to the policy of gigantic land grants for railroads or other purposes. We believe they do essentially interfere with the benign policy of granting lands in limited allotments to actual settlers and improvers, without exacting any price therefrom. . . . Settle the lands compactly, and railroads will be constructed through them rapidly and abundantly. Establish the principle that improved land is a free gift of God, to be dispensed as air and water are, to all who need, and as they need, and ample capital will be released from land speculators to construct any number of railroads."45
There were many who believed as Greeley did. In fact, the home-steading principle could not be reconciled with the railroad subsidy policy, especially when the latter led to the monopolization of land to the disadvantage of the settler. Was it President Pierce's interest in democracy rather than his sympathy with slavery interests that led him to take this stand against railroad subsidies? For if the corporation was to dominate the remaining good lands in the West, then home-steading would be an empty victory for democratic America. [166]
While millions of acres of rich lands in the Mississippi Valley were being doled out, the movement for aid in the construction of transcontinental railroads had been taking an interesting course. The idea of linking the Mississippi Valley with the Pacific Coast had appeared as early as 1832. But not until 1845 did Asa Whitney's plan for the construction of a railroad linking the Great Lakes to Oregon, in return for a grant sixty miles wide along this route, gain any considerable attention throughout the country. Strangely enough, certain people in the South Atlantic States became interested in the Whitney plan, among whom was John C. Calhoun. By 1850, after the organization of Oregon Territory and the admission of California into the Union, this plan came up for more serious consideration. Every junction point along the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River visioned itself the eastern terminus of a transcontinental railroad.
The southern interests had fond hopes of making some point on the lower Mississippi the eastern terminus, but prominent southern authorities soon became convinced that northern support for such a project was well-nigh impossible. As De Bow's Review put it: "If there were all the merit in the world in favor, the universal strength of the North is against us."46 Pointing to the Land Reformers, whose cries against land and monopoly were becoming stronger every day, De Bow believed that within five years' time the prolific sources of revenue from the public lands would be cut off and that the lands henceforth would be given away and not sold. Hence as a second choice he favored Whitney's plan for a railroad from Lake Superior to the Pacific. Some population would be drawn from the South, but he thought that most of it would come from the large northern cities. This would be a good thing, for many of the northern city-folks "without homes or interest except for their daily bread . . . would soon become land owners, not land reformers. . . . Such people" then could no longer "be used by the demagogue. They would have means to supply all their wants, and could consume largely of southern products, and could not be supplied from any other source. Being agriculturists, and desiring no protective legislation, would not their wants and their interests be more directly connected with the South than with the North and East ?"47 De Bow, it appears, feared the rising industrialism of the North, and urged the [167] South to support land grants to western railroads as a means of building up southern support in the West, and as a means of staving off the protectionists and land reformers of the North.48 This strategy, however, came too late; already railroads from the North were reaching out to tap the very West whose support the South hoped to gain. Within the next year the South turned from Whitney's route to one heading westward from some point on the lower Mississippi.
While northern proponents were blocked in their plans by the existence of the Indian Country which had been guaranteed to the tribes "as long as the stars should shine and the rivers flow," the South concentrated its efforts on a route westward through Texas. Undoubtedly it was this growing interest that led to the purchase of the Gila Valley from Mexico in 1853,tne transaction known as the Gadsden Purchase. At the same time the northern proponents gained an important victory in the despatching of Manypenny to the Indian Country for the precise purpose of abrogating the perpetual treaties with the Indians so as to make way for a transcontinental railroad via a northern route. Already settlers were breaking into the Indian Country, and it was becoming more evident every day that the country immediately west of Iowa and Missouri would be opened up to settlement. By act of Congress in 1853, the Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis, was directed to employ a part of the corps of topographical engineers to explore all possible routes for a railroad to the Pacific Coast. Inasmuch as Davis was a proponent of a southern route it was not likely that the northern route would be found most desirable.
In the midst of this interest in transcontinental railroads appeared the bill for the organization of Nebraska Territory. Concerning the Kansas-Nebraska Act, it is necessary here to say only that the manipulation of the passage of this act by Stephen A. Douglas changed the whole course of the movement for a transcontinental railroad. The repeal of the Act of 1834 establishing the Indian Country, and the creation of the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, made possible the building of a transcontinental railroad from Chicago westward -- a route Douglas was personally interested in -- but at the same time, the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and the admission of slavery to these territories precluded any immediate realization of this objective. The eyes of the nation were at once shifted from transcontinental railroad proposals and [168] other subjects to the bitter slavery issue. The South became more and more determined in its stand against any important land measure, the benefits of which would accrue to the North.
This realinement of die forces on a North-and-South basis was completed in 1854 with the right-about-face of Horace Greeley, late arch foe of land monopoly and speculation, to a stand favoring the Pacific Railroad. The editor of the Tribune, now began to point out the national-defense advantages of such a great communication link. It would save large sums which were being paid for carrying troops, stores, munitions, and mails by way of the Isthmus or Cape Horn. The government was spending forty million dollars annually for the purposes of national defense; the Pacific Railroad, he thought, would be worth half as much as all these expenditures. It would bring San Francisco within ten days of New York, and secure to the Atlantic and inland cities the lucrative and rapidly-increasing trade of the Pacific Coast. Oregon, Washington, and California would be filled with a thrifty, intelligent, and industrious population. While he preferred the northern route, because it was shortest and best, nevertheless, he would take the southern route rather than none at all.49 In 1857 it seemed to him that no one would object to a grant of two or three miles in width on each side of the track to the builders of the railroad, with free use of timber, stone, coal, iron, and other minerals from the public domain, which inducements, he thought, would reduce the construction costs at least 25 per cent.50 Greeley's altered stand on land-grant subsidies doubtless indicates the ever-increasing support of the industrial East for the transcontinental project. However, the slavery issue deferred the success of this project, until the secession of the southern states made it possible.