aass_ £ <^ gQ Book ^JlAA Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive in 2010 witii funding from Tine Library of Congress littp://www.arcliive.org/details/homesteadsforsolOOjuli HOMESTEADS FOR SOLDIERS ON THE LANDS OF REBELS. spb;ech / jy OF HON. GEO. W. JULIAN, of ^flffil; DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 18, 1864. The House having under consideration the 'ill reported from the Committee on Public Lands amend- atory of the homestead law, together with the amendments thereto, Mr. JULIAN said : Mr. Speaker: During the past month I prepared and reported from the Committee on Public Lauds a bill to provide homesteads for persons in the militarj^ and naval service of the United States, on the forfeited *and confiscated lands of rebels. The bill wa.s re-committed and printed; and my purpose was to discuss its provisions under the gene- ral call of committees for reports, which will bring the subject directly before the House for its action. I find, however, in tie crowded state of our business, that this would de- lay my purpose indefinitely; and I have therefore concluded to avail myself of the op- portunity now offered to submit what I have to say. The measure referred to will be considered a novel one, but it should not therefore be regarded with surprise or disfavor. Our country is in a novel condition. The civil war in which we are engaged is one of the grandest novelties the world has ever seen. We are every day brought face to face with new questions, and compelled to accept the new duties which lie in our path. Whosoever comprehends this crisis, and is willing to assume its burdens, must keep step to the march of events, and turn his back upon the past. The bill I have reported, however, is less a novelty in its principles, than in their ap- plication to new and unlooked for conditions. It involves, among other things, the policy of free homesteads to actual settlers ; and since this policy is now seriously nrtenaced, I may be allowed to refer briefly to the subject, by way of preface to what I shall have to say on the special matter before us. Our homestead law was approved May the 20th, 1862. Its enactment was a long de- ' layed but magnificent triumph of freedom and free labor over the slave power. While that power ruled the Government its success was impossible. By recognizing the dignity of labor and the equal rights of the million, it threatened the very life of the oligarchy which had so long stood in its way. The slaveholders understood this perfectly ; and hence they resisted it, reinforced by their northern allies, with all the zeal and despera- ; tion with whicii they resisted " abolitionism" itself. / Its final success is among the bles-seCl compensations of the bloody conflict in which we are plunged. This policy takes for grauted the notorious fact that our public lands have practically ceased to be a source of revenue. It recognizes the evils of land monopoly on the public domain, as well as ih the old States, and looks to its settlement and improvement as the true aim and highest good of the Pvepublic. It disowns, as iniquitous, the principle which would tax our land- less poor men a dollar and a quarter per acre for the priviledge of cultivating the earth; for the privilege of Oiaking it a subject of taxation, a source of national revenue, and a home for themselves and their little ones. It assumes, to use the words of General Jack- son, that "the wealth and strength of a country are its population," and that " the best part of that population are the cultivators of the soil." This bold and heroic statesman urged this policy thirty-two j ears ago; and had it then been adopted, coupled with ad- equate guards against the greed of speculators, millions of landless men who have since gone down to their graves in the weary conflict with poverty and hardship, would have been cheered and blest with independent homes on the public domain. Wealth incalcu- lable, quarried from the mountains and wrung from the forests and prairies of the West, would have poured into the federal coff'ers. The question of slavery in our national ter- ritories would have found a peaceful solution in the steady advance and sure empire of free labor, whilst slavery in its strongholds, girdled by free institutions, might have been content to die a natural death, instead of ending its godless career in an infernal leap at the nation's throat. — i The homestead act did not go into effect till the first of January, 1863. Within four months from that date, notwithstanding the troubled state of the country, more than a million of acres were taken up under its provisions ; and at the close of the year endingj September the 30th, this amount was increased to nearly a million and a half Peace will eoon revisit the land andjj^urrect the cation to a new life. The energy aud activity of 2 the people, now directed to the business of war, will be dedicated afresh to industrial pursuits. Many thousands in the loyal States who will have caught the spirit of travel and adventure, .and far greater multitudes in the old world who will be teini>ted to our shores, will lay hold of the homestead law as their glad refuge and sure help. It will be the day-star of hope to inillious beyond the sea, and it is now the fond child of the millions of our own people who march under the old flag of our fathers. Should it stand for ten years to come, its bje'ssings will outstrip the most sanguine anticipations of its friends. Its overthrow, I have said, is threatened ; and this is done by indirection, as well as by open assault. Since the date of its passage, Congress has granted neaily seven millions of acres for the benefit of agricultural colleges, and about twenty millions to aid in the construction of railroads. There are now pending before Congress bills making other grants for railroads amounting to nearly seventy millions of acres. We have a project before us which grants nearly seven millions of acres for the education of the children of soldiers; another, granting two hundj«d thousand acres in the State of Mich- igan for the establishment of female colleges, wlfch of course would be extended to the other States ; and another, granting ten millions of acres for the establishment of Normal schools for young ladies. Every day witnesses the birth of new projects, by which our public lands may be frittered away, and the beh.eficient policy, of the homestead law mu- tilated and destroyed. And simultaneously vj^th the development of this backward movement, and as if to aid it, speculators are hovering over the public domain, picking and culling large tracts of the best lands, and thus cheating the government out of their productive wealth, and the poor man out of the hon^ which else might be his at the end of the war. Whilst the homestead policy is thus invaded b}' gradual approaches and in- direct attack, its overthrow is boldly demanded as a financial necessity. A veteran pub- lic journalist, and one of the foremost part}- leaders of our time, proposes to go back from the Christian dispensation of free homes and actual settlement to the Jewish darkness of land speculators and public plunder. He wants money to pay our immense national debt, and seeks to obtain it by levying on the lands which the nation has already dedicated by law to occupancy and cultivation as the sure means of revenue. What we want and the Government needs is immigration. This is demonstrated by the report of Hon. Samuel B. Ruggles to the International Congress which met at Berlin in last September. He takes the eight food-producing States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnestoa, Iowa, and Missouri, and shows that between the years 1850 and 18G0 their population increased 3,554,095, of whom a very lai'ge proportion were emigrants from the old States and from Europe. He shows that this influx of population increased the quantity of improved land in these States, within the same period, 25,146,054 acres; that the cereal products of these States increased 248,210,028 bushels; tliat their swine in- creased 2,503,224; their cattle 2,831,098. He further shows that within tlie same period the assessed valueof real and personal estate of these States was augmented $2,810,000,000. These, to a great extent, are the direct results of immigration ; and in the light of these facts the interest and duty of the Government are palpable. By all honorable and rea- sonable means it should tempt Europe to send her people to our shores. From 1850 to 1860 the immigration averaged, annually, 270,762, giving a total of 5,062,414. Within the next ten years, should the homestead policy continue, the number of immigrants will probably far transcend all precedent, while increasing multitudes from our older States ■will join in the grand procession towards the West. If Thurlow Weed wishes to use the public domain in paying our national debt, here is the process. It is simply to give heed to the divine injunction to "multiply and replenish the earth." It is to give homes to the millions who need them, and at the same time coin their labor into national wealth, by marrying it to the virgin soil which woos the cultivator. It is to compel the earth to yield up her fruits, so that commerce may transmute them into silver and gold. Thus only can we solve the problem of our finances, so far as the public lands are concerned. The project of paying a debt of three thousand millions of dollars, or even the interest on it, by the sale of these lands, is sublimely ridiculous; whilst the proposition to repeal the homestead law is a proposition to encourage speculation, to plunder the Government, to betray the just rights of millions by violating the plighted faith of the nation, to hin- der the march of civilization, and to weaken the force of our example as a Republic, asserting equal rights and equal laws as the basis of its policy. But I pass from this topic. I have adverted to it, partly because I desired to sound the alarm of danger in the ears of the people, and thus avert its approach, and partly because the considerations I have presented bear directly upon the measure now before the House. Mr. Speaker, this rebellion has frequently, and very justly, been styled a slave- holders rebellion. It is likewise a land-holders rebellion, for the chief owners of slaves have been the chief owners of land. Probably three-fourths, if not five-sixths of the lands in the rebel states at the beginning of the war belonged to the slaveholders, who constituted only about one fiftieth part of the whole population of those States ; whilst of the entire landed estate of the three hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders of the 3 South, at least twotblrds belonged to less than one-third of their number. I make my calculations from our census tables, and sucl\ other information as I find within my reach. The bill I have reported therefore contemplates no general seizure and confiscation of the property of the people in the insurrectionary districts. It looks to no sweeping measures against tlie rights of the masses, but simply to the breaking up and distribu- tion of vast monopolies, which have made the few the virtual owners of the multitude, whether white or black. It is^a bill to restore the people to their inalienable rights, by chastising the traitors who conspired against the government. It proposes to vest in the United States the lands which maybe forfeited by confiscation in punishment of treason, or of other crimes under municipal laws ; by confiscation as a right of war, by military seizure, or by process in retu ; and by sales for nonpayment of taxes. The quantiitj of real estate which will thus pass from the hands of rebels' cannot now be definitely determined, but in seeking to estimate it we should bear in mind one impor- tant consideration. The war which the rebels are waging against us is no longer a mere insurrection. It is not a grand national I'iot, but a civil, territorial war between them and the United States. Having taken their stand outside of the Constitution, and rested their cause on the naked ground of lawless might, they have, of necessity, no constitu- tional rights. For them the Constitution has ceased to exist. They are belligerents, ene- mies of the United States. They still owe allegiance to the government, and are still traitors, but they are at the same time pul)lic enemies, who have simply the rights of war, and are to be dealt with according to the laws of war. The rights of war and the rights of peace cannot co-exist in the hands of rebels. One party to a contract can- not violate it, and yet hold the other bound; and hence the Constitution has nothing ■whatever to do with our treatment of the rebels, unless we shall see fit voluntarily to waive the rights of war, and deal with them as citizens merely. I am not now uttering my own opinion but the solemn judgment of the Nation itself, speaking authoritatively through the highest court in the Union. According to the decision of that court a civil war between the United States and the rebels has been carried on for more than two years and a half. In the celebrated prize cases decided last spring, and reported in 2, Black's Re- ports, p. 635, Judge Grier says, " the parties to a civil war are in the same predicament as two nations who engage in a contest, and have recourse to arms;" that " a civil war exists, and may be prosecuted, on the same footing as if those opposing the government were foreign invaders, whenever the regular course of justice is interrupted by revolt, rebellion, or insurrection, so that the courts cannot be kept open ;" and that "the present civil war between the United States and the so-called Confederate States has such a character and magnitude as to give the United States the same rights and powers which they might exercise is the case of a national or foreign war." Such, Mr. Speaker, is the law as to the relations existing between the rebels and the United States. I am not arguing the point, because all argument is closed by this decision. The rebels are belli- gerents, and when they shall be effectually vanquished, they will have simply the rights of a conquered people under the law of nations, that is to say, such rights as we shall choose to grant them, according to the laws of war, untrammelled by the Constitution of the United States. In the light of this settled principle, Mr. Speaker, I judge of the extent of rebel territory which must fall under our control. The war will increase in intensity and fierceness to the end. The exasperation of the rebels will naturally keep pace with our successes. Our war policy, which has been steadily growing more and more earnest and radical for the past two years, will not again become a " war on peace principles." The amnesty proclamation may reach the case of many, but should it reach even all who are not expressly excepted by its terms, there will still be an immense territory falling under ■our power. Sir, whether we have willed it or not, this is now a war of subjugation, and the law of nations nm^t govern the parties and the settlement of the dispute. We shall not be confined to the penal enactments of Congress on the subject of treason, which require an indictment, a regular trial, and a conviction. The condemation of rebel prop- erty need not depend upon the prosecution of its owner through a grand jury, who may be wbollj' or in part secessionists, nor upon his conviction by a petit jury of like char- acter, nor upon the finding of a bill within any statute of limititations. Resting our case on the law of nations and the laws of war, we are not compelled to seek the land of the rebel through a trial which must be had in the county in which the offence was committed, and in which both court and jury may be in sympathy with the accused. The seveial penal acts of Congress on these subjects, and the ordinary safeguards of law appHcable to the rights of citizens in a time of peace, are not in our way. The war powers of the government, as asserted and defined in the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th, sections of the confiscation act of July 17, 1862, point to a remedy as sweeping as it is jj^^t, namely, the military seizure, condemnation, and sale of the real estate of traitors an their abettors. A considerable quantity of land, it is true, may pass from the rebels by judicial proceedings against them for treason, and other crimes under municipal statute^. I know too that millions of acres must be forfeited by the non-payment of taxes. But 4 iiulependent of these sources of title, and by virtue of military seizure and condemna- tion alone, a verj- large proportion of the lands within the iusurrectJonarj districts must v''P:5t in the government of the United States. If it be said that the government has no right to confiscate the fee simple of rebel Striies, I meet it with a direct denial. la what I have said, 1 have taken this right for granted. I have never doubted it for a m.oment, and I shall not now argue the question. The honest refusal of the President, in last June, to allow Congress to touch the fee of rebels in arms against the nation, was the saddest and grandest mistake of his life. That the right to do so was disputed and debated in the last Congress, as it has been exten- fively in this, by some of our wisest statesmen and greatestlawyers, will hereafter be set down among the political curiosities of this century. Our fathers were not fools, but wise men, who armed the nation with the power to crush its foes, as well as to protect its friends. "The Constitution was made for the people, not the people for the Gcnsti- tutton." It was not designed as a shield in the hands of traitors, but as a sword in the liatidd of the government to smite them to the earth. It recognizes the law of nations a:id tlie laws of war, nor was it possible for our country to escape them. The builders of our national ship did not so fashion and rig her that she could sail only in calm weather and over smooth seas, but they qualified her to ride out the fiercest tempest in s.afety. and to defy all pirates. That the nation, in this struggle for its life against red- lianded traitors and assassins, has no power to confiscate their lands, is a proposition which gives comfort to every rebel sympathizer in the country, while it insults both loyalty and common sense. The people linow better, and on this question their voice mnst be heeded. They do not believe, but they knov), that the lands of rebels are sub- ject to our power iinder the laws of war, as well as their personal property, their negroes, or their lives. The government, in the course of this struggle, has learned many lessons. Others are yet to be mastered. Having learned how to strike at slavery as the wicked cause of the war, and to arm the negroes in the national defence, it must now lay hold of the lands of rebels. I believe our triumph over them is not so near at hand as we generally suppose. The most terrific fighting of the war is yet to come. They do not dream of surrender, or compromise, on any conceivable terms. They will resist us, to the end, with a spirit bb remorseless as death, and as bitter as the ashes of hell. They must be overcome and crushed by the powers of war, and we must employ, with all the might which can be kindled by the crisis, every weapon known to the law of nations. Congress must repeal the joint resolution of last j^ear which protects the fee of rebel land-holdei-s. The President, as I am well advised, now stands ready to join us in such action. Should we fail to do this the courts must so interpret the joint resolution as to make its repeal needless. Should both Congress and the courts stand in the way of the nation's life, then "the red lighting of the people's wrath," must con- sume the recreant men who refuse to execute the popular will. Our countr_y, united and free, must be saved, at whatever hazard or cost ; and nothing, not even the Constitution, must be allowed to hold back the uplifted arm of the government, in blasting the power of the rebels forever. I come then, Mr. Speaker, to the practical question involved in this bill. This con- flict is to be ended by hard, desperate, and perhaps protracted fighting. We shall cer- tainly win ; and our triumph will inevitably divest the little to a vast body of land in the rebel States, and place it under our controL I think it entirely safe to conclude that it will constitute more than half and probably three-fourths, of all the cultivated lands in the rebellious districts. It will certainly, in any event, cover many millions of acres. It will include all lands against which proceedings in rem shall be instituted, under the provisions of the act to suppress insurrections, and to punish treason and rebellion, ap- )>roved July I'Zth, 1862; all lands which may be sold under the provisions of the act for the collection of direct taxes in insurrectionary districts, approved June 7th, 1862; and all lands which may be sold under the provisions of the act to provide internal revenue to support the Government, approved July 1st of the same year. What shall be done with these immense estates, brought within our power hy the act6_ of rebels? One of two policies, radically antagonistic, must be accepted. They must be allowed to fall into the hands of speculatoi-s, and become the basis of new and frightful monopolies, or they must be placed under the jurisdiction of the Government, in trust for the people.' The alterifative is now presented, and presses upon us for a speedy de- cision. Under the laws of Congress now in force, unchecked by counter legislation, these lands will be purchased and monopolized by men who caie far more for their own mer- cenary gains than for the real progress and glory of our country. Instead of being par- celed out into small homesteads, to be titled by their own independent owners, they will be bought in large tracts, and thus not only deprive the great mass of landless laborers of the opportunity of acquiring homes, but place them at the mercy of the lords of the soil. The old order of things will be swept away, but a new order, scarcely less to be deplored, will succeed. In place of the slaveholding land-owner of the South, lording it over hundreds of slaves and thousands of acres, we shall ha-ve the grasping monopolist 5 of the North, whose dominion over the freedmen and poor whites will be more galling than slavery itself, which in some degree tempers its despotism through the interest of the tyrant in the health and welfare of his victims. T!ie maxim of the slaveholder that "capital should own labor," will be as frightfully exemplified under the system r,f wage^ slavery, the child of land monopoly, as hnJer the system of chattel slavery, which has eo long scourtjed the southern States. What we should demand is a policy that will guarantee homes to the loyal millions who need them, and thus guard their most precious rights and interests agains't the remoiselcss exactions of capital and the pittiless rapacitj'- of avarice. The helpless condition of the poor of the rebel States, when capitalists shall have monopolized the' land, is already forshadowed in the recent repoi-t of Mr. Yeatman, of the Western Sanitary Commission. He says: ' ' The poor negroes are ererywhere greatly oppresacd at their condition. They all testify that if they wpre only paid their little wages as tliey earn lliem, so that they could parchase clothiug, and furnished with the provisions promised, they could stand it; but to work and gpt poorly paid, poorly' fed, and not doctored when sick, is more than they can endure. Among the tlionsanils whom I questioned none Showed the least unwillingness to work.. If they culd only be paid fair wages they would Ije conicnted and hupps-. They do not realize that they are free men. They say that they are told they are, but then they are taken and hired out to mfen who treat them, so far as providing for them is concerned, far worse than their ' seceah' masters did. Besides this, they feel that their pay or hire Is lower now than it was when the ' secesh' used to hire them. "The parties leasing plantations and employing these negroes do it from no motives either of loyalty or humanity. The desire of gain alone prompts them, and they care little whether they make it out of the blood i>f those they employ, or from the soil: There are, of course, exceptions; but I am informed that the majority of the lessees were only adventurers, camp followers, 'army sharks,' as they are term- ed, who have turned aside from what they consider their legitimate prey, the poor soldier, to gather the riches of the land which his prowess has laid open to them. I feel that the fathers and brothers and friends of tliese brave men should have an opportunity to reap, under a morc^ equitable system for the laborer, the reward of the months of toil and exposure it has cos', to open this country to the institutions of freedom and compensated labor. If these plantations were required to be sul)divided into parcels or tracts, to suit tlie views and means of our western men, say in farms of from one to two hundred acres, thousands would soon floek to the South to lease them, especially when it was known that one acre of ground there cultivated in cotton woul?,.As^ =^