LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Killll'MlilllJIll! penmalii^s E 667 .S61 Copy 'REW JOHNSON AND THE EARLY PHASES OF THE HOMESTEAD BILL PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS READ BEFORE THE MISSIS- SIPPI VALLEY HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. AT ST. PAI;L. may 9. 1918 BY ST. GEORGE L; SIOUSSAT Reprinted from the Mississippi V ALLEY Historical Review Vol V, No. 3, Dec, 1918 1 4 L 667 [Reprinted from the Mississippi Valley Historical Review. Vol. V, No. 8, Dec, 1B18] ANDREW JOHNSON AND THE EARLY PHASES OF THE HOMESTEAD BILL^ In the Earl of Durham's "Report upon the affairs of British North America," published in the Parliamentary papers for 1839, the problems of public lands and emigration were taken under consideration, and the following judgment, by way of comparison with conditions in Canada, was expressed as to the administration of the public domain of the United States. "The system of the United States appears to combine all the chief requisites of the greatest efficiency. It is uniform through- out the vast federation ; it is unchangeable save by Congress and never has been materially altered; it renders the acquisition of new land easy, and yet, by means of a price, restricts appropria- tion to the actual wants of the settler; it is so simple as to be readily understood ; it provides for accurate surveys and against needless delays ; it gives an instant and secure title ; and it ad- mits of no favoritism, but distributes the public property among all classes and persons upon precisely equal terms. That system has promoted an amount of immigration and settlement of which the history of the world affords no other example, and it has produced to the United States a revenue which has averaged about a half-million sterling per annum, and which has amounted in one twelve months to about four million sterling or more than the whole expenditure of the federal government. ' ' ^ 1 This paper was the presidential address read at the annual meeting of the Mis- sissippi valley historical association at St. Paul, May 9, 1918. 2 "Reports on the affairs of British North America from the Earl of Durham, Her Majesty's high commissioner," in Parliamentary papers, session of 1839, 17: 74. 254 St. George L. Sioussat ^- V- h. r. In contrast with the very favorable opinion of the British commissioner may be cited another, which likewise had its origin from without the limits of the United States. In a letter ad- dressed to his brother-in-law, James F. Perry, in March, 1830, Stephen F. Austin, then colonizing Texas under the jurisdiction of the Mexican government, wrote as follows : *'We have nothing to fear from this [the Mexican] govt, nor from any other quarter except from the United States of the north. If that govt, should get hold of us and introduce its land system, etc., etc., thousands who are now on the move and who have not yet secured their titles would be totally ruined. The greatest misfortune that could befall Texas at this moment would be a sudden change by which any of the emigrants would be thrown upon the liberality of the Congress of the United States of the North. Theirs would he a most forlorn Jiope."^ These strongly opposing comments of the thirties illustrate respectively two points of view of great significance in the his- tory of the public lands of the United States : the point of view of the thickly settled, capitalistic part of the country, and the point of view of the frontier. The clashing of these two points of view goes back to very early times in the history of America, and an understanding of the controverted issues is essential to the purpose of this paper. In the fateful years which brought to a close the exercise of authority in America by the British government there was mani- fest a vivid contrast between the actualities of American life and the plans of the British ministry. This was true particularly of the system of granting lands in those colonies which were under the direct control of the crown. Among the arguments which found the support of government was that which urged the danger of depopulating Great Britain and Ireland through emigration. The fear was expressed that if colonial population in America increased, manufactures would start up in the pos- sessions to the detriment of British interests. On the other hand it was pointed out that to restrict to the region east of the moun- The passage was cited by Senator Felch of Michigan, Congressional globe, 31 con- gress, 2 session, appendix, 103 ff. 3 Stephen F. Austin to James F. Perry, March 28, 1830, in Austin papers, univer- sity of Texas. For his kind permission to use this passage, and for bibliographical suggestions, I am indebted to the courtesy of Mr. E. C. Barker. ulIt Vol. V, No. 3 Andreiv Johnson and the Homestead Bill 255 tains the granting of lands, which had been the policy of the government since 1763, might bring abont in the east a density of population that would render more likely the development of colonial manufactures, while the opening of the west to free set- tlement would prevent this danger. In 1774, the British govern- ment put into effect a new land policy which looked towards the definite end of procuring, by a system of surveys and sales, an increased revenue from the lands subject to disposition by the king. That the establishment of the new regulations as to sur- veys and sales came too late and that the system could not be put into effect was the opinion of many of the royal officials. That it was unwise Burke maintained in his famous speech on concilia- tion with America. That it was illegal was the theory of Thomas Jefferson, w^hose ''Summary view" contains a somewhat anti- quarian but none the less radical argument as to the limitation of the king's right to determine at all the conditions of granting land in America. Meanwhile, in direct antithesis to the new royal policy was the hard fact that already men were swarming over the mountains into the Ohio valley and seating themselves upon the land, with a title if they could get one, without a title if they could not.* The contrasts which have been suggested — the opposition between the policy of financial gain and the practical issue of rapid settlement, the effort to control by a system the conflicting interests of different regions, and the misunderstanding of one region by another — very shortly reappeared in full intensity both in the new states which had lands to administer and in the public domain which resulted from the cessions of claims of states to the United States; and in the public domain, partic- ularly, these disputes and difficulties continued for many gen- erations. The earlier phases of this development may here be passed over.^ Between sections and leaders there developed of 4 The land policy of the British government in its many phases, with the closely related topics of Indian relations and transmontane settlement, has received ex- haustive treatment in the recent work of Clarence W. Alvord, Tlie Mississippi val- ley in British politics: a study of the trade, land specul-ation, and experiments in imperialism culminating in the American revolution (Cleveland, 1917). A general reference may likewise be made to Miss Amelia C. Ford's Colonial precedents of our national land system as it existed in 1800 ([Madison], 1910). 3 Thomas Donaldson, The public domain: its history, with statistics, with refer- ences to the national domain, colonization, acquirement of territory, the survey, ad- 256 St. George L. Sioussat m. v. h. e. necessity plans of compromise, and, beginning with the period of the thirties, we may notice briefly three policies laid before the American people. There was, first, the scheme of Henry Clay, — to sell the lands in the west at a price, and to distribute the greater part of the net proceeds from the sales of these lands among all the states of the union. This plan, dear to the whig party and to the east- ern manufacturing states in particular, was intimately related in Clay's thought to the desirability of a protective tariff and the undertaking of internal improvements by the federal gov- ernment. Another plan was that supported by Calhoun, who, abominating both the protective system and internal improve- ments, wished to lessen also the influence of the federal govern- ment through its possession of the land and to this end urged that those parts of the domain which lay within the bounds of organized states should be surrendered to those states. This latter plan was never adopted; but, in combination with other proposals, it made various ghostly appearances long after itg most important advocate had passed from the scene. The third scheme of primary importance and of chief interest to the stu- dent of western history, was the one with which the name of Thomas Hart Benton is inseparably connected. In this plan there were several elements. Born in a systemj^ich presup- posed a financial purpose, Benton's plan assume^Tthat the lands in the west were to be sold. But it urged, first, that the occu- pant or ''squatter" who had anticipated the legal sale of the land and settled upon it in violation of law, should be protected and should have the first right to buy at the minimum price. Hence the successive preemption laws. Secondly, it was Ben- ton's idea that the amount of time for which land that had been offered for sale remained unsold constituted a criterion of the quality of the land. He therefore presented and persistently supported a plan for the graduation and reduction of the price of the unsold lands according to which plan lands that had failed for a certain number of years to sell at the minimum price of ministration and several methods of sale and disposition of the puhlic domain of the United States (Washington, 1884) ; Shosuke Sato, History of the land question in the United States (Johns Hopkins university Studies in historical and political science, fourth series, vii-ix, Baltimore, 1886) ; Payson J. Treat, The n-ational land system, 1785-1820 (New York, 1910). Vol. V, No. 3 Andrew Johnson and the Homestead Bill 257 $1.25 per acre should be offered at a less amount. Those not sold at this lower price after another period of time should be offered again at a rat(^ still further reduced. Thirdly, Benton urged that the land which would not sell at all — that which he called ** refuse" land — should be given free of charge to occu- \pants.° In another place ^ I have endeavored to show to what a great extent these ideas of Benton were derived from the experience of Tennessee, the state in which Benton's earlier political career was cast, the state which though it had teclinically been in the public domain was by force of its peculiar history in relation to North Carolina not of it. Here it is unnecessary to elaborate upon this point: but it may be pointed out that just as New Englanders, with New England ideas, spread themselves west- Avard,^ so both hundreds of people and individual leaders passed out of Tennessee not only into Missouri, but into Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas, and carried with them their ways of look- ing at things. By way of example one may point to the Seviers and Conways of Arkansas, to Sam Houston of Texas, and to Gwin of California. Moreover, in what we may call the Ten- nessee regime of the democratic party, the era of Jackson and Polk, the plan of Benton received the support of the national administration.^ Benton's "log cabin" bill, first brought up in 1824 and expanded in 1826, was unsuccessfully urged for fifteen years, though various stages of preemption were gone through. Both Jackson and Van Buren, however, approved his plan ; and the graduation principle was adopted by the executive in treaties with the Indians where lands were to be sold.^° In 1841, as an 6 Raynor G. Wellington, The political and sectional influence of the public lands, 1828-1842 ([Cambmlge], 1914). 7 St. George L. Sioussat, "Some phases of Tennessee polities in the Jackson period," in American historical reviciv, 14: 51. 8 Lois K. Mathews, The expansion of New England, the spread of New England settlement and institutions to the Mississippi river, 16S0-1865 (Boston, 1909), chs. 1, 6-10. 9 While Henry Clay consistently opposed Benton 's scheme, it received at different times partial support from Daniel Webster. See Congressional debates, 4: part 1: 660, 666, 674, and Worlcs of Daniel Webster (fifth edition — Boston, 1853), 4:391 ff., 523 ff ; 5: 386. It was James Madison, Webster said, who had called his attention to the importance of the public lands. 10 Cliarles J. Kappler, Indian treaties (Washington, 1904); Chickasaw, 1832, 2: 359 ; Chickasaw, 1834, 2 : 421-422, Chippewa, 1838, 2 : 516-517. 258 St. George L. Sioussat m. v. h. r. outcome of the whig victory in the election of 1840, a hybrid law was passed" which brought into temporary activity Clay's plan of distribution and into permanent force the preemption part of Benton's scheme/^ By reason of the peculiar relation of this matter to the whig tariff policy, and because of the grand fiasco which overtook the whigs on the death of General Harrison, the distribution plan automatically ceased and the efforts to bring it into existence again did not succeed though distribution like Calhoun's cession to the states lifted its head at various times thereafter.^^ For the next two or three years no land measures were en- acted comparable to the law of 1841. But in the second congress of Tyler's administration, — the twenty-eighth congress, — which assembled in 1843, there was a democratic house of representa- tives ; and in this congress the plan of graduation and reduction, which in the thirties had been the chief rival of distribution, made its appearance anew. Henceforth, the graduation bill was a hardy annual, until in the session of 1853-1854 it at last be- came a law. At least for the earlier part of the Polk administration this bill was pressed as an administration measure. In the first session of the twenty-eighth congress the bill was introduced in the senate by Robert J. Walker of Mississippi and in the house by Houston of Alabama. At this time there was little debate. In the campaign of 1844 the Texas and Oregon questions, with that of the tariff, over-shadowed all others. When the election was over the bill was vigorously debated in the house of repre- sentatives.^* After Polk became president he appointed Shields of Illinois commissioner of the land office, a position which fell within the department of the treasury, the head of which, Robert J. Walker, was a prominent supporter of the graduation plan.^^ When the twenty-ninth congress assembled. Shields in his an- nual report. Walker in his communication as secretary, and the 11 Approved September 4, 1841. United States statutes at large, 5: 453. 12 Andrew Jackson, at this time in retirement at the Hermitage, asked his friend F. P. Blair to thank Benton for the log cabin bill. Jackson to F. P. Blair, 1841, 115 Jackson papers, library of congress. 13 George M. Stephenson, Political history of the public lands, from 1840 to 1863, from pre-emption to homestead (Boston, 1917), ch. 6. 14 Congressional globe, 28 congress, 2 session, 21, 50-53, 69-72, 82-84, 240, 248. 15 Walker is one of those to whom the authorship of the homestead principle has been attributed. Voi.A^, No. 3 Andrew Johnson and the Homestead Bill 259 president in his message/" all urged the expediency of putting into force at once the graduation of the price of the public lands. Introduced in both houses at the beginning of the session the bill was postponed, but later Breese, chairman of the committee on public lands in the senate, and McClernand, who held a similar position in the house, each pushed the measure/^ The bill passed the senate by a vote that followed pretty distinctly party lines: the democrats for the bill and the whigs opposing it.^" This bill was then sent to the house which had been somewhat sharply debating a bill of its own. The house laid aside its own bill and passed the senate bill with amendments ])y a close vote.^" The length of the graduation period did not suit the house, so it was sent back to the senate with amendments. The senate tinkered with it further and when it went back to the house the second time it was laid on the table a few days before the close of the ses- sion.^^ An examination of the legislative course of the bill brings out two observations of interest. In the first place, in congress also the bill w^as claimed as an administration measure. The preceding year, just after the election, McClernand, pleading for the graduation bill, had maintained that the victory of Polk showed that the people demanded the bill." Now Bowlin of Missouri again made this a direct appeal. It was, he said, one of the great issues in the contest of 1844 and stood in contra- distinction to the whig scheme of distribution. The people had decided in favor of graduation, the president had brought it be- fore congress. Keferring to Texas, Oregon, the tariff and the independent treasury, he said, "The four first great acts of the political drama have been passed. What Democrat is prepared to make a stumbling block of the fifth?"" This assertion that the bill was distinctly a party test was not unquestioned,^^ but 16 The statements of each of the three men may be foiuKl, ihid., 29 congress, 1 session, appendix: Polk's message, 7; Walker's, 12; Shields', .'?9 ff. 17 Congressional globe, 29 congress, 1 session, 45, 86, 953, 967, 988, 1040, 1057 fif. The speech of McClernand of Ohio, July 10, 1846, is in Hid., 29 congress, 2 session, appendix, 33. 18 Ibid., 29 congress, 1 session, 1073. ■^9 Ibid., 1075, 1094. 20 Ibid., 1195. 21 Ibid., 28 congress, 2 session, 72. 22 Ibid., 29 congress, 1 session, 1061-1062. 23 Remarks of Vinton of Ohio, ibid., 1076. 260 St. George L. Sioussat m.v.h.e. the votes in both senate and house bear out the general accuracy of the claim. In the second place, however, there developed an important exception to the support of the democratic side which, together with the absence of many members, appears to have been the cause of the final defeat in the house. This was the op- position of many democrats of the eastern states who joined with the whigs :" an alignment which had been predicted in the course of the debate. This attitude of the eastern democrats was of course not new ; it had been manifest in the controversies of 1838 and 1839. But its reappearance now at the very time of the introduction of the Wilmot proviso is significant. On the other hand it is worthy of note that most of the democrats of the old south, including the South Carolina contingent, were found ranged with those of the southwest and the northwest, in com- mon support of the bill against the whig opposition.^^ To follow briefly the course of the graduation bill : in the se- cond session of the twenty-ninth congress Polk, besides recom- mending graduation in his first message, sent in a special mes- sage,-^ saying that the enactment of the measure would increase the revenue from the public lands, which was needed for the prosecution of the war wdth Mexico. The graduation bill was again introduced, but more significant was the effort of the com- mittee on ways and means to embody the graduation principle in a revenue bill.^^ In both forms the proposed legislation failed. Besides other disturbing forces, the absorption of in- terest by the bounty law of 1847 ^^ which offered warrants for land to the soldiers and officers of the Mexican war, rendered less likely than before the passage of the graduation bill. The effect of the bounty law naturally was to take from the domain hundreds of thousands of acres. A sharp division between east and west appeared in the insistence on the part of the west that the warrant holders should become settlers, and in the objection 2*Eemarks of Henley, ibid., 1071. 25 lUd., 1069, 1073, 1179. In 1837-1839, when Van Buren was urging graduation, the bill passed the senate and failed in the house. Then Calhoun and his followers were in opi)Osition. (Wellington, The 'political and sectional influence of the public lands, 68-73.) Now Calhoun and Benton supported the bill. This makes the more marked the position of the eastern democrats. 2c 4 Tdchardson (U. S.), 516, February 13, 1847. 27 Congressional globe, 29 congress, 2 session, 440, 536 ff. 2? United States statutes at large, 9 : 123 ; ef . Stephenson, Political history of the public lands, from 1840 to 1862, from pre-emption to homestead, ch. 9. Vol. V, No. 3 Andrew Johnson and the Homestead Bill 261 of eastern men that the east should not be depopulated in order that the west might he settled. ^'^ The honiity act was important not merely for itself but because it initiated the policy of thus granting lands, a policy which was continued through the acts of 1850, 1852, and 1857. The cause of the graduation bill in the thirtieth congress was hopeless, for the whigs controlled the house of representatives. The outstanding feature of these years was an able report by Collamer of Vermont against the graduation policy.^" When the thirty-first congress met in 1849, although the administration was whig, the democrats re- gained control of the organization of both houses, and the grad- uation bill appeared again. Bowlin of Missouri was chairman of the committee on public lands in the house of representatives and Felch of Michigan in charge of the same committee in the senate. In the thirty-second congress, W. P. Hall, a democrat from Missouri, succeeded Bowlin, while Felch continued. The thirty-third congress once more saw both houses of congress and the executive department under democratic control. Dodge of Iowa was chairman of the senate committee and Disney of Ohio chairman of that of the house. In the first session of this con- gress the graduation and reduction bill became law. Like most of the land measures that were proposed, the plan of graduation and reduction was in reality an effort to effect a compromise between the principle of revenue and the interests of the actual settlers. The same statement may be made as to the concession of the right of preemption, particularly as em- bodied in the act of 1841. Under this law and those which had preceded it, the settler was favored in that he had the right to buy at the lowest government price. The government, however, received a revenue from the land though this revenue w^as dimin- ished by the difference between the minimum price and that which the land might have brought at auction. The settlers were dissatisfied with the act of 1841 ; they asked for a general pro- spective preemption which should apply to the unsurveyed pub- lic domain as well as to that which had been surveyed, or for an extension of the time for making payments on preempted lands. The latter concession, if granted, would have been equivalent to a reestablishment, in part, of the former credit system.'^ 29 Eeniarks of Perry of Maryland, Congressional glohe, 29 congress, 2 session, 254. 30 Beports of the house of representatives, 30 congress, 1 session, no. 732. 31 Steplienson, Political history of the puhlic lands, from 1S40 to 1862, from pre- 262 St. George L. Sioussat m. v. h. e. But the demand had been heard for more than this, for more than a mere compromise. That the government should give land outright to actual settlers and surrender entirely the seeking of revenue, was no new idea. The head rights of Virginia and other colonies were a precedent of sufficient antiquity, and many gifts had been made by the government of the United States to indi- viduals.^^ A distinction must be drawn, however, between free gifts of land to actual settlers, either those already seated or prospective occupants, and grants of lands that involved some service rendered in return. This will serve to distinguish the real homestead grant from the many forms of bounties given for military service or some return to the government wdiich might be considered a fair compensation. Thus, as far back as 1840 the settlers in Oregon had petitioned for donations of land,^^ and ten years later, after much debate, such grants were made.^* In the meantime similar gifts were made to settlers in Florida.^^ In both these cases it was considered that a special return was ren- dered to the government either because the recipients were hold- ing the ground in so distant a region as Oregon or because they were acting as a defense against the Indians, as in Florida. The multiform grants to the states were likewise justified upon a theory of compensation.^'' But the homestead plan asked the government to give away the public lands and sacrifice all direct revenue therefrom at a time when the settlement of the west was no longer uncertain. However strong the arguments for home- steads was it was not the advantage to the government that was the most convincing. Having made this distinction between the homestead idea and the grant for military or other service, I wish to attempt a sim- emption to homestead, 97-103. Cf. many petitions to congress in House of repre- sentatives papers (manuscripts), in library of congress, packages marked "Wisconsin public lands," 1843-1847, 1845-1848. 32 Ford, Colonial precedents of our national land system as it existed in 1800, ch. 6; Treat, The national land system, 178S-18S0, ch. 12. 33 Senate documents, 26 congress, 1 session, 514; Congressional globe, 26 congress, 1 session, 60, 103, 296. 34 Act approved September 27, 1850. United States statutes at large, 9:496ff. 35 Act of August 4, 1842. Ibid., 5: 502. 36 Matthias N. Orfield, Federal land grants to the states with special reference to Minnesota (Minneapolis, 1915). See also Treat, The national land system, 1785- 18S0, ch. 11. Vol. V, No. 3 Andrew Johnson mid the Homestead BUI 263 ilar delimitation between the strict homestead of good land and Benton's idea, which persisted throuf^hont the following period, of giving to actual settlers either directly or through the states the "refuse" land. This was one part of the "log cabin" ))ill. The idea, no doubt, found a special development in Tennessee where occupants or squatters had settled upon poor lands or odd bits of land not covered by North Carolina warrants. In the fed- eral land system Benton wished to make provision for those un- able to buy at the land sales even after the pi'ice had been grad- uated and reduced. As to Tennessee the idea was pressed in congress by David Crockett, in opposition to the rest of the Ten- nessee delegation, who asked permission to sell refuse lands in Tennessee for the benefit of schools. Finally these lands w^ere given to Tennessee. ^^ A somewhat different phenomenon appeared in another south- western state. In his Biographical and pictorial history of Arkansas, Hallum^^ claims that the origin of the homestead pol- icy goes back to Governor E. N. Conway of Arkansas, at one time federal auditor. It appears that but few soldiers settled on the lands granted to them in Arkansas and these lands were sold by the state for nonpayment of taxes. The burden of the back taxes was sometimes so large that no one would buy the lands, and they remained on the hands of the state. In 1840 Conway recommended that "a law be passed donating to every individual who would settle upon and improve a quarter sec- tion of such land, the right of the state thereto, conditioned that the taxes afterwards accruing upon the land thus occupied should be regularly paid, or the land and improvements there- on should revert to the state and remain subject to private sale." "Were such a law passed," he continued, "and the lands thus donated, whilst held under such titles only, exempted from exe- cution of sale for any other debts than state and county taxes, it is the humble opinion of the auditor that the military district would in a few years be greatly improved and the revenue aug- mented. Persons not wishing to avail themselves of the bene- fits of such a law should be allowed as they now are, to purchase at private sales, lands which had once been offered at public 37 Ibid., 353. 38 John Hallum, Bioc/raphical and pictorial hl See the printed pamiihlct, Letter of Andreiv Johnson to his constituents (Wash- ington, 1845), to wliich reference is made below. 272 *S^^. George L. Sioussat ^- V- n. k. the treatment of social inferiority accorded to the poor artisan by the well-to-do farmers, and also an element peculiar to John- son's own personality. Within ten years from the time that Johnson reached Ten- nessee he had succeeded in politics to the extent of securing election, first to town offices in Greenville, and then as repre- sentative in the state legislature. In 1834 Tennessee adopted a new constitution. Before the convention came many questions of change, such as the demand for an abolition of slavery put forth by persons in East Tennessee. The sectionalism of the state was strongly marked, as it is to this day, finding a natural basis in the division of the state by the Cumberland plateau and the Tennessee river. When Johnson entered the lower house of the Tennessee assembly, it was at the first session after the adoption of the new constitution, when many statutes of semi- constitutional nature were debated so that there was an unusu- ally good opportunity for a new representative to be educated in the practical working of the state government. It was the very time also of the revolt against the domination of state poli- tics by the friends of General Jackson, out of which, so far as Tennessee was concerned, developed the whig party. After a period of hesitation Andrew Johnson threw himself whole-heart- edly into the service of the regular democratic organization, a course which he tenaciously pursued to the time of the civil war. Defeated for the next assembly, because, it is said, of opposi- tion to internal improvements, Johnson was more successful in 1839. After another term in the house and one in the senate of the assembly, he was elected in 1843 representative in congress of the first Tennessee district. But before an attempt is made to follow him in his congressional career it will be best briefly to consider the work which he had done and the estimate which had been placed upon him when he entered national politics. Al- ready he had exhibited political ability and force to an extent that warranted James K. Polk, chief master of the democratic organization in Tennessee, in suggesting Johnson as a possi- bility for the senate of the United States." A bitter partisan, Johnson shared in the maneuver by which the democrats kept 51 James K. Polk to Maclin, January 17, 1842. Polk papers, library of con- gress. Voi.v, No. 3 Andrew Johnson and the Homestead BUI 273 the state a couple of years without any United- States senators rather than elect a whig. His radical tendencies had already manifested themselves in his support of the proposal to form East Tennessee into a separate state, a reflection of sectional jealousy. But the activity which later was most used abainst him was his support of the "white basis" for the arranj^ement of the congressional districts in Tennessee. This plan looked to the substitution in the arrangement of these districts of an apportionment according to the white population alone, in place of the existing ''federal" basis, by which five negro slaves were to count as three white men. The effect of the change would be to give East Tennessee, with its fewer slaves, a larger share of the representatives in congress. It is interesting to examine Johnson's defense of this policy in answer to the charge of sym- pathy with the abolitionists which very naturally his enemies raised against him. He said that it was necessary to make the change for the very purpose of defending slavery. If the non- slaveholders of East Tennessee were satisfied within the state it would be the best means of preventing antislavery tendencies and making the state united. Against slaveholders as a superior class he frequently expressed himself in vigorous terms. But so far as I know his speeches and private letters reveal little or no sympathy with anything like abohtion and his dislike of the abolitionists in general and of the New England sort in particu- lar appears to have been thorough. Such was Andrew Johnson when he entered congress in De- cember, 1843, in the same session in which Stephen A. Douglas and Howell Cobb also began their congressional service. But whereas Douglas was at once placed at the head of a select committee to investigate a matter of apportionment, and thus brought into a conspicuous position, Johnson was given only a place in the committee on claims and in the committee on expen- ditures in the war department. In his first session he paid his tribute to party regularity in the debate on remitting the fine levied on General Jackson by Judge Hall of New Orleans and took part in the sectional struggle over the reception of abolition petitions which was now marked by the baiting of John Quincy Adams. Johnson accused the north of conspiring to break up the union through its attack on the south. "But when we of the 274 St. George L. Sioussat m.v.h.k. South," he said, *Svho represent the interests of the slave states, contend for our rights Gentlemen say 'Oh you are too much ex- cited, too much heated' . . ." He denounced the famous statement of Adams in the last congress, that in case of a ser- vile war the free states if called in to suppress insurrection in the south might establish emancipation.^^ At a later time a friendly editor said^^ that John Quincy Adams had declared Johnson to be possessed of more native ability than any man in the house of representatives. The literal exactness of this re- port may well be doubted ; but in the memoir of Adams there is found an expression of appreciation for Johnson's support in a matter of parliamentary detail.^* While always in line with his party as against the whigs, Johnson nevertheless appears to have taken every possible op- portunity to manifest his independence of the party leaders. Thus it happened that Stephen A. Douglas, Jefferson Davis, and Thomas H. Bayley of Virginia all felt the lash of Johnson's tongue. With these as with many of the whig leaders the occa- sion of ugly passages of debate was usually some sentiment or allusion which Johnson chose to consider as in some way reflect- ing upon the workingman. Again and again, sometimes it would seem with deliberate intent to pick a quarrel, or at least with a disposition to choose an unpleasant interpretation of a word, Johnson rose to declare himself the friend of the laborer. It is not hard to understand the bitterness with which such a man as Jefferson Davis, for instance, would remember such encoun- ters,^^ nor to see that Johnson's manner must have interfered with his success in the larger fields of politics. Quite as characteristic was the attitude of Johnson towards political matters. He supported all the measures of Polk's ad- ministration, but denounced the administration's plan to tax tea and coffee as oppressive of the poor. He conceived a bitter ani- mosity to the new Smithsonian institution, and historical students will doubtless place him in their black books because he opposed 52 Congressional globe, 28 congress, 1 session, 212-214. 53 Nashville Union, May 10, 1853. ^* Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, comprising portions of his diary fro-m 1795 to 1848, edited by Charles Francis Adams (Philadelphia, 1874-1877), 12: 240. 55 Jefferson Davis, Eise and fall of the confederate government (New York, 1881), 2 : 703 ; Varina B. H. Davis, Jefferson Davis, ex-president of the Confederate States of America; a memoir hy his xvifc (New York, [1890]), 1: 242 ff. Vol. V, No. 3 Andrew Johnson and the Homestead h'ill I'Tr) appropriations for the relief of Mrs. Madison in the matter of the purchase of the Madison papers. He pressed with great en- ergy his belief that there was an unfair distribution of the offi- ces at the command of the executive,'"' urged that these should be divided in accordance with geographical regions and main- tained that farmers and meclianics should l)e given a larger proportion. He proposed that the members of the supreme court should be put upon the elective basis, supported the familiar amendment which looked to changing the election of the presi- dent, and brought in one of the early amendments for the popular election of senators." Notwithstanding his radical principles, though one can hardly suppose it was because of them, .Johnson served five terms in the house of representatives. Various competitors canvassed his dis- trict against him, of w^hom the most bitter in personal animosity was William Gr. Brownlow who poured upon Johnson all the poli- ce The exercise of the executive patronage and Jolinson 's discontent tl'.erewith formed the subject of an earnest conversation between .Johnson and President Polk. The diary of James K. Polk during his presidency, 1845 to 1849, edited by Milo M. Quaife (Chicago, 1910), 2:35-41. 57 Nashville Union, May 21, 1849, citing ' ' Gallery of portraits of past and present members of congress," No. 1, in New York Sunday Times, gave an extended sketch of Andrew Johnson, from which the following paragraph is taken: "Owing to the want of early advantages, of which I have wi-itten above, Mr. .J. at times slashes his mother-tongue, — pronouncing words of many syllables, or of recent foreign derivation, with little regard to rules laid down by Walker or Webster. More or less of his fellow-members will titter and sneer at Mr. J. 's many false anglicisms; yet I have rarely seen it done, save by someone smarting under the point of his ora- torical bowie-knife. Though expressed in uncouth phraseology, his views are easily understood; for he talks strong thoughts and carefully culled facts in quick succes- sion. He thrusts his opponents through and through, as with a rusty and jagged weapon, tearing a big wound and leaving something behind to fester and be remem- bered. Woe be unto the luckless wight who offers him a personal indignity — casts a slur upon him, in debate; for if he has to wait two years for the opportunity, when it does come, Mr. J. makes the best use of it. He puts no bridle upon his tongue; yet he is never guilty of a personal disrespect to a fellow-member, or even to the opposite party as a whole. Perhaps I may fairly characterize his efforts as being slashingly crushing, for he chops to mince-meat and then grinds to powder the men, measures and principles he may be contending against. He takes and maintains positions at times, which I can hear no other man advocate without feeling morally sure that the man is speaking without the least regard to the effect of his words upon hia own prospects as a public man. He is emphatically the Ledru-RoUin of the House — that is, if Mr. Ledru-Rollin is an honest man. Mr. Johnson is, however, by no means afflicted with socialism. He would be the last man in the House to sanction the robbery of either class in society to pension any other class — not he." 276 ,5'^. George L. Sioussat m. v. h. k. tical vitriol of which he had so vast a supply and whom Johnson in return described as a ''hyena." This domination of his district by Johnson was overthrown, not by any opponent, but by a gerry- mander which the whigs arranged in 1852 with the deliberate intention of depriving Johnson of his seat. His answer to the challenge was to make the race for the governorship. Not only did he succeed but for the first time in a number of years a re- election followed. At the end of his second term he was able to bring to pass his election as senator ; two years later he select- ed the other democratic senator, and in 1860 his name for several ballots was presented as that of a "favorite son" in nomination for the presidency by the Tennessee delegation in the Charles- ton convention. When one realizes that this political progress was maintained in spite of the opposition secret or open of many of the democratic leaders in the central and western parts of the state one sees all the more clearly the power that Johnson ex- erted over the mass of the voters in the state as a whole. The congressional contest in which Brownlow sought to defeat Johnson was that of 1845. In answer to the attacks of Brownlow Johnson pursued the very customary course of issuing an ad- dress to his constituents. This was full of bitter controversial matter which, beyond one statement, is of no significance here. He attacked one of the community who, he said, "is violently opposed to me no doubt because I am too much the poor man's friend; because I, while a member of the Twenty-eighth Con- gress, was in favor of giving to every man, who could not raise a sum of money sufficient to pay the government price for the public land, a certain number of acres, (the numbers of acres though to be regulated in proportion to the number of children in family,) free of charge, by his moving to and settling upon it. While I have been standing by the poor man in getting him a home that he could call his, it will not be out of place, in this con- nexion, to ascertain what the opinions are of those who have been trying to crush me in the estimation of the people. "^^ The paternity of great public measures is often as much dis- puted as Homer's birthplace; and the parentage of the home- stead bill has been claimed for many persons.^^ In a very schol- 58 Letter of Andrew Johnson to Ms constituents. 59 This has been due in part to a failure to distinguish carefully the homestead principle from that of the "log cabin" bill. Vol. V, No. 3 Andrew Johnson atid the Homestead Bill 277 arly dissertation the latest writer upon this period in llic his- tory of the public lands, Mr. George M. Stephenson, has duly noted the resolution introduced January 4, 1844, in the courses of the first session of the twenty-eighth congress, which was to instruct the committee on public lands to inciuire into tiie ex- pediency of passing a law to donate eighty acres of land to every actual settler "being the head of a family and living with the same and not now the owner of land and who through misfor- tune or otherwise is unable to purchase," This resolution was submitted by Robert Smith of Illinois. But Mr. Stephenson does not call attention to the fact that these lands were to be selected from those which had been ten years on the market, that is, lands of presumably inferior quality.'"" In the second ses- sion of this congress an amendment to the graduation bill, pro- posed by Thomasson of Kentucky, undertook to donate to every actual settler ''being the head of a family" forty acres. It ap- pears from the debate that this, too, had reference to lands that had previously been offered for sale.®^ In the first session of the twenty-ninth congress, however, independent homestead bills were introduced by Felix Grundy McConnell of Alabama and by Andrew Johnson of Tennessee."' It was at this session, as we have made clear above, that the graduation and reduction bill came so near passing; and both the bill of McConnell and that of Johnson,*'^ together with the two earlier propositions 60 Stephenson, Political history of the public lands, from 1840 to 186S, from pre- emption to Jwmestead, 116; Congressional globe, 28 congress, 1 session. 103. In the following session, when the graduation bill was (lel>ate(l at length, Smith, on Decem- ber 27, 1844, made a speech in reply to Causin of Maryland, who had upheld the eastern point of view. Ibid., 28 congress, 2 session, 69 ff. In the first session of the next congress, on July 9, 1846, he made another extended speech on graduation, in which he referred to his resolution introduced in 1844. Ibid., 29 congress, 1 ses- sion, 1062 ff. 61 Ibid., 28 congress, 2 session, 241. Cf. J. B. Sanborn, * ' Some political aspects of homestead legislation," in American liLstorical review, 6: 27. 62 McConnell asked permission to introduce his bill January 9, 1846. Congres- sional globe, 29 congress, 1 session, 172. Jolmson asked anotlier member to waive a motion which he wished to offer, to allow him (Johnson) to introduce his bill, but failed (March 9). Ibid., 472. On March 12 he asked leave of the house to intro- duce the bill. Ibid., 492. On March 27 he introduced the bill. Ibid., 563. A copy of this bill (H. R. No. 319) was kept by Andrew Johnson and is still with a number of printed homestead bills in the Johnson papers, library of congress. 63 On December 11, 1845, Ficklin of Illinois also submitted a bill to grant lands to actual settlers "under certain limitations." Congressional globe, 29 congress, 1 session, 43. The content of the bill does not appear. 278 St. George L. Sioussat m. v. h. e. mentioned, were closely connected with the parliamentary course of that measure and illustrated what we have called the west- ern point of view. Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama pretty well represent that section of the country.''* But among the petitions of 1844-1845 is one presented by Severance of Maine from Dudly P. Bailey and forty others of the same state requesting that congress ''should pass with all convenient haste, a law by which every citizen, who may be desirous of cultivat- ing the earth for a living, shall be enabled to enter upon the pub- lic lands and occupy a reasonable sized farm thereon free of cost. "'^'^ A similar petition from Alleghany county, Pennsyl- vania, was presented January 30, 1846, by Darragh of that state '^^ and a few days later Herrick of New York presented a memorial of the National Reform association with regard to the public land which was referred but not printed.*'^ Herein are seen early manifestations of the radical eastern propaganda.''^ McConnell, who seems to have been regarded by the house as something of a wit and to have been taken not very seriously, tried several times early in the session to introduce his bill which was to provide a home for "every man, maid or widow being the head of a family. ' ' '^^ The last time he used the word ' ' home- stead r"'^'' but this does not seem to have been in general use at this time. Andrew Johnson, many years later, claimed that his introduction of the bill antedated that of McConnell,^^ but it appears that McConnell really made the first efforts. ^^ Both 64 Thomasson, however, expressed a desire to remove the lands from the national treasury because he did not wish revenue from the public domain to break down the tariff. 65 January 3, 1845. Ibid., 28 congress, 2 session, 89. 66 Ibid., 29 congress, 1 session, 283. 67 March 9, 1846. Ibid., 471. 68 The plans of Johnson and McConnell both fell short of the demands of the land reformers. Documentary history of American industrial society (Commons and asso- ciates ed.), 8: 64-65. 69 Congressional globe, 29 congress, 1 session, 172 (January 9), 420 (February 24), 473 (March 9), 558 (March 26), 1045 (July 1). -loihid., 1063 (July 6). 71 Ibid., 35 congress, 1 session, 3043. 72 It was the advice to his students of a great teacher of history, Herbert B. Adams, to ' ' avoid the use of the superlative. ' ' This applies, in general, to the efforts of historical writers to locate the "first" appearance of an idea; and, in par- ticular, to the authorship or ' ' fatherhood ' ' of the homestead bill. Ten years before the period under consideration a Mississippi representative in congress, Franklin E. Vol. V, No. 3 Andrew Johnson and iJic Homestead Bill 279 Johnson and McConnell tried also to tack tlieir measures on to the graduation bill, in the form of an aiiK'iidmciit,'' and McCon- nell made similar efforts in coimeclioii \vith otiier bills. Within a few months McConnell committed suicide. Johnson continued in congress and therefore had the advantage of mak- ing repeated efforts to secure consideration for his bill. The suggestions of giving grants of land to settlers which in the forms of petitions, resolutions, separate ))ills or amendments to the graduation and reduction bill had in 1844-1846 ushered in the beginnings of the homestead discussion were not followed up decisively in the congress of 1847-1849. The political mal- adjustment caused by the election of a whig house of repre- sentatives, the agitation over the Wilmot proviso, the bickering over the conduct of the Mexican war and the influence of the bounty law all acted unfavorably. But the agitation of the eastern radicals was having its effect. In the presidential cam- paign of 1848 the land reformers tried to enlist Martin Van Buren in their cause ; but that wily politician and even the f ram- ers of the Buffalo platform were afraid to come out clearly for the full program of Evans and his followers. The Buffalo plat- form did include a homestead plank. Van Buren, however, de- clared himself not ready to assent to the free gift of the public lands. On the other hand Greeley gave his support to General Taylor and the regular whig ticket. Thus the adherents of land Plummer, a native of Massachusetts, presented a petition of sundry citizens of Mis- sissippi and made a speech thereon. The petition prayed for a law granting to each native citizen of the United States not already a landholder and who was not worth five hundred dollars, 160 acres of land on condition of settlement and continued cul- tivation for the period of five years. In his speech upon the petition Plummer said the condition of white men too poor to purchase a home was worse than that of the Indians. The petitioners were thankful for the preemption laws, but asked for donations. They pointed out that the Mexican republic was holding out actual dona- tions of land to settlers and that many would be compelled to seek in a distant land a home which they could not obtain here. Plummer condemned the United States government as the only nation on earth that ever adopted a policy of holding up its waste and unappropriated lands as a source of revenue except for some temporary reason. This may stand as the "first" congressional proposal of a real homestead measure, — • until someone discovers an earlier one. Register of debates in congress, 1834-1835, 11: part 2, 1566-1570. "J^ Congressional globe, 29 congress, 1 session, 1077 (Johnson, July 10); 1192 (Mc- Connell, August 4); 1200 (McConnell, August 6, on the Oregon bill). The bill of Johnson is reprinted in Documentary history of American industrial society (Com- mons and associates, ed.), 8: 62-64. 280 St. George L. Sioussat m. v. h. r. reform were divided/* Though in the east the homestead idea found friends in several political groups, no effective political organization made the measure exclusively its own. Thus in this period the history of the homestead bill had for the time a nonpartisan aspect different from that of the graduation bill in the campaign of four years before. After the election the homestead principle again appeared in the house in two bills differing in content, the one submitted by Andrew Johnson, the other by Horace Greeley, a member of this congress. During this short session Johnson through illness was unable to look after his bill ; and so he placed it in the care of his Tennessee colleague George W. Jones.'^^ Jones accomplished nothing, and Greeley's bill was speedily tabled.^*' Greeley left congress, but Johnson had taken a fresh start and at every ses- sion during the remainder of his membership in the house of representatives he introduced a homestead bill in one form or another. In the thirty-first congress, that of the compromise of 1850, he had played a part of some importance in the election of Cobb as speaker, and for the first time was given the chair- manship of a committee, — that on public expenditures.^^ Wlien he found the committee on public lands predisposed in favor of its own measure of graduating and reducing the price of the public lands, he tried the unusual expedient of reporting his bill from the committee on public expenditures, — his own commit- tee. This naturally aroused instant protest. It was insisted that such a bill should go to the committee on public lands.^^ He "4 See note 46 above, and Stephenson, Political history of the 'public lands, from 1840 to 1862, from pre-emption to homestead, 135-139. Theodore 0. Smith, in his The liberty and free soil parties in the northwest (New York, 1897), discusses the election of 1848, but has little to say of the relation thereto of the question of the public lands. 75 Johnson gave notice of his bill December 11, 1848. Congressional globe, 30 con- gress, 2 session, 25. Jones tried to introduce the bill February 14, 16, 1849. Hid., 534, 548. 76 The bill was tabled by a viva voce vote February 27, 1849. Ibid., 605. There was also a bill presented by E. Embree of Indiana, February 5, 1849. Ibid., 454. 77 Ibid., 31 congress, 1 session, 88. Two years later he resigned this post, on the ground that he had nothing to do. 78 He gave notice January 7, 1850. Ibid., 131. On February 25 he reported the bill from his own committee. Ibid., 408. Securing unanimous consent he intro- duced his bill February 27, and asked that it be referred to the committee on agri- culture. This was refused and the bill was referred to the committee on public lands. Ibid., 423, 424. Vol. V, No. 3 Andrew Johnson and flic Homestead BUI 281 then tried a new tack. Finding more friendly some of the com- mittee on agriculture, lie changed the title of his hill so that it purported to he one to encourage agricnlhire. Tliis committee got the bill 1)efore the house, and Johnson proceeded, on July 25, 1850, to make his first speech upon the ])ill/" He distinctly stated that this hill was a homestead hill, and remarked that when first introduced some five years ago it was considered wild and visionary. But now the public mind had lieen directed toward the measure and the most prominent men of the country were vying with each other in support of it. Senators "posses- sing the tallest intellect" had entered the competition. He wished it to be distinctly understood that he was ''no agrarian, no leveller, as they were termed in modern times," He wished to elevate, not to pull down. In support of his proposition he cited Moses, Vattel, and Andrew Jackson, a somewhat curious combination of authorities. When he argued that the domain of United States belonged to the people as a whole, as much as the other great elements, air, fire, water, he was coming pretty close to the ideas of the land reformers. Johnson's bill did not come to a vote.^° But that a change was developing in the estimate which the public mind placed on this measure was manifested in the presentation in the senate of various propositions by Seward, Douglas, Webster and Sam Houston,*^ while AValker of Wisconsin suggested a combination of a homestead plan with one of cession to the states.^- Seward 's resolution looked to a grant of land to the exiles from Hungary ; and it was over this phase of the question that most of the de- bate took place. In the short session of 1850-1851 Johnson again introduced 79 He gave notice of the new bill March 4, and June 4 it was introduced and re- ferred. Ibid., 448, 1122. The committee on agriculture reported the bill and John- son spoke on July 25. His speech is given at length in ibid., appendix, 2: 950-952. 80 A bill proposed by Moore of Pennsylvania ' ' to discourage speculation in the public lands" was also a homestead bill. Ibid., 139, 424. 81 For Douglas see ibid., 75, 87 (December 24, 27, 1849). On December 24 (ibid., 75) Cass had introduced a resolution looking to tlie severance of diplomatic relations with Austria. Seward 's resolution to grant land from the public domain for the Hungarian exiles was offered January 9, 1850. Ibid., 128. On January 22, Webster moved his resolutions which on March 28, on his own motion, were postponed. Ibid., 616. Houston's proposal was made January 30. Ibid., 262. 82 December 24, 1849. Ibid., 74. 282 St. George L. Sioussat m.v.h.r. his bill,®^ as did Walker in the senate. This time Johnson was supported by George W. Julian, who acknowledged** his debt to Johnson for the opportunity of making a speech. But future dangers in the way of the bill were made evident when Julian combined with his advocacy of the homestead bill an out and out abolition argument very unflattering to the soutli.*^ The first session of the next congress, the thirty-second, im- mediately preceded the presidential canvass of 1852. A home- stead bill finally passed in the house of representatives, notwith- standing the rivalry of a new form of distribution proposed by Bennett and very favorably received, and also an amendment skilfully urged by Cobb of Alabama, who professed friendship to the homestead principle. There was a long and interesting debate,^^ which revealed the importance which the bill had now attained. Early in April Johnson wrote to his friend Patterson ''The 'Homestead' will pass without doubt unless some influ- ence is brought to bear against is not now seen or known to exist. Various M.C. who were considered against it during the last Congress are now for it, viz. Toombs, Stephens, Venable, etc. The mongers in land warrants are opperating [sic] to some extent against it. I think in the end that can be turned to good account. ' ' ®^ In connection with the work of this session we have the most complete evidence of the relations that existed between Johnson and the land reformers of New York who, through the assistance of Greeley, were insistent in their pressure upon congress. Shortly after the bill had passed the house of representatives 83 This session was marked by a considerable persistence on Johnson 's part, and by evidences of opposition to the introduction of the bill on the part of those who controlled the house. Ibid., 31 congress, 2 session, 22, 76, 94, 204, 216, 365, 752. 84 George W. Julian, Political recollections, 1840 to 1872 (Chicago, 1884), 103-104. 85 January 29, 1851. Congressional globe, 31 congress, 2 session, appendix, 135. 86 The bill passed the house May 12, 1852. Ibid., 32 congress, 1 session, 1348 ff. The course of the debate on the bill may be traced by the indexes to the Congres- sional globe and appendix. Well chosen selections are printed in Documentary his- tory of American industrial society (Commons and associates ed.), 8: 65-78. Among the members of this house who took up the cause of the homestead bill was Galusha A. Grow of Pennsylvania, then serving his first term. Grow was the youngest mem- ber of this congress. His biographers point out the fact that he became a disciple of Thomas Hart Benton, then a member of the house. James T. DuBois and Gert- rude S. Mathews, Galusha A. Grow, father of the homestead law (Boston, 1917). 87 Andrew Johnson to D. T. Patterson, April 4, 1852. Johnson papers, library of congress. Vol. V, No. 3 Andrew Johnson