Localities. Now when people talk about federalism, they usually use the term to refer to the balance of power between the federal government and states. But last time we were talking about the debates between state and local level power. And those mirrored debates at the federal level and if anything they were much more contentious because so much governing authority was located in the states and localities. And what were talking about was a system of layered authority. Where states had control over the rights of citizens and the Public Interest. But they gave local areas Broad Discretionary Authority over a wide range of matters involving the Public Interest. So basically the states then handed over all of the discretion over this broad area of the Public Interest to local areas and so these jurisdictions that operated simultaneously, with local areas doing their thing and states doing their thing. And this contained a conflict between two different kind of visions of law. So we had a universal view where states had a monopoly over Legal Authority and they were the ones who defined the law. And then a particularistic view where states were actually made up of many localities. People thought, oh, it is not just a state, it is many localities and they all made up a state. And law came from multiple sources and the outcome would be attentive to the particular circumstances of people and places. So that was last time. And this time we move to western lands and federal legal order. Well continue this question of federalism because western lands were one of the areas where the federal government did exert a lot of power and authorities and western lands show the value of law. We think of private property is something that is natural but you could see the law at work in this whole issue of western lands. So western territory is made public actually through law. So first of all, you have to turn this land out there into the property of the public. And that is done through law. And then the law turns that land into private property. So once law makes it public, it turns around and said well now were going to turn this into private property. Were going to hand this over to individuals. And this process illustrates the legal power of the people. The people. The abstraction that we havent really clearly defined yet. And that defines us in the context of the federal government. So settlers who had legal standing within the new nation, they use their place as the people, as part of the new nation to go settle lands and create a right to it. And indians who do not have that standing in the people, they cant do that. So settlers as the people have access to law and this gives them a chance to create land as a private property, whereas indians who are blocked from using the law are not able to do that and they lose the land. And this is also about the purpose of government. So what are the goals and policies of the federal government and whose interest should it represent . So all of this is at play here. And this is one place where the people are coming into contact with federal power. So the outline today were going to talk about the revolution and the importance of land. And then well talk about land policies, and then well talk about the conflicting interests of the people. And then well talk about native americans who were excluded from the people and who didnt want to be part of the people. They had their own nations. They were not interested in being part of the United States. So first, the revolution and the importance of land. So first of all, we have hamiltons economic vision. So hamilton, and there is hamilton there, hamilton equated commercial development and Economic Growth with national power. So england is his model here. And hes thinking commercial development, Economic Growth, the government needs to be actively involved in this in order to underscore and create and define the political power of the nation. So he wants an active National Government that promoted the economy. Hes linking those two things together. He wants in particular a high tariff to protect manufacturers. So if you have a high tariff that means that you are increasing the competitiveness of manufacturers in your own country. So your charging more for the goods that come in, which then means that the goods that youre producing internally are more competitive. He wants to pay off the revolutionary debt to stabilize credit and improve Credit Ratings of the facing and the states. So he wants strong credit for the country and for the states. And he also wants the establishment of a National Bank to stabilize the currency and in previous classes weve talked about the problems of scarce and unStable Currency and the diversity amongst all of the currency states are issuing so that makes trade and commerce difficult to do when you have multiple currencies all fluctuating in value and it is difficult to tell the value of what you have in your hand that way and he wants to have a Stable Currency to apply across the nation here. Hamilton is embedding liberalism into his economic vision. So hamilton emphasized the governments role in protecting and expanding Property Ownership and he sees this as the primary goal of government. So government is there to protect property, to regularize its exchange and to create circumstances that promote commerce. So individual interests and National Interests are coinciding here in the protection of property. It is very done lock. That is the order. Hamilton is on board with all of this. He thinks this is good for individuals to have a property regime that is secure, is in the best interest of individuals, the results will promote the strength of the nation because individuals will be able to engage in trade and work on their economic interests and all of those individuals together and their economic interest will underscore and reinforce the power of the nation. So the nation then should promote these kinds of results. So we should have an active government that is involved in promoting all of this commercial activity. But actually this focus on Property Owners betrays a narrow view of the people. Because those without property are not figuring in directly here in any way, shape or form, really. In fact, hamilton is flippant on this and he argues that, ah, the policies are good for people without property too because it gives them something productive to do. Otherwise, theyre just going to be lying around there, right. So no, well give them something to do and this is good for them, right. Excellent. So it is kind of an after thought. His interests are focused on property holders. Jefferson has a different view. And here is jefferson. His is a republican vision. And it is based in revolutionary ideology. So he thinks for the republic to succeed in plitd political terms it needed an economic citizenry. So he, too, is linking the nations political interest to the economic interest. But in a different way from hamilton. So he is saying that only those who were economically independent could be good citizens. So only those who had sufficient land and tools and other forms of property to support themselves, only those people can actually be good citizens. You need that economic independence to be political independent and participate in the policy. And jefferson was worried it would erase the middle here, the independent farmers and artisans who he is depending on to provide the economic bulwark of the nation and thinks that hamiltons plans will erase those people and eliminate the kind of economic options they need to sustain their independence. So he thinks that in the end hamilton is going to lead to two classes. Those people with property and without and those people who need something to do and hes more interested in sustaining the middle here. And he think if you go to the two classes youll have a government that is only in the interest of the wealthy. It will be captured by the wealthy and this will ruin his republican experiment and he thinks it will result in unchecked power and the collapse of the republic and that the United States will end up just like england and that is not where he wanted to go. But jeffersons vision of the people here is also fairly limited because he wants those people who are economically independent, but that excludes the vast majority of the population who dont own property or cant own property. Women who are wives, enslaved people dont have property. So youre talking about actually a vast majority of the population here who is excluded from his vision of the people. But it is still broader than hamiltons. Now jeffersons policies, his other policies really reflect his political vision. So his economic policies are all about geographic expansion. He wants to add on more territory. The more territory you add on, the more land you have. The more land that is out there for people to farm and then those farms will create the economic independence that he thinks is necessary for the nation. He also then is about incorporating these neuter New Territories into the republic. So hes expansive. More states, more states, more areas, more land. And he has incentives and support for development of those areas. And hes way into education. He thinks education is crucial here. Because you dont just have to be economically independent, you also have to be an engaged, responsible citizen. And for that you need a modicum of education here. So education is not for economic opportunities. Its not job training in the way we talk about it today. It is education to be an informed citizen in your country. So hes linking education to citizenry and hes also for public support of education for that reason. It is good for the Public Interest to have an educated citizenry and you cant have a republic without an educated citizenry. So this is a picture of university of virginia, which jefferson thinks as one of his primary accomplishments is founding this and supporting university of virginia. Now liberalism and republicanism coalesce in the post revolutionary legal order. And you get locked with hamilton and weve talked about lock and his position of liberalism. So in this vision land and other property needs to be used productively. Although jefferson is also arguing this, land, property, you need to use this productively. That is part of the economic and political vision here. And government should be focused on the protection of property which is also very much about lock. You get republicanism more through jefferson and that is one of the founding ideologies of the revolution and way that filters through in shaping policy after the revolution. So through jefferson, we get the idea of the political viability of the republic depends on citizens who are economically independent. That is crucial. It is called political economy. The economy and the political go together here. Government then should ensure the economic basis for its political success. So here in republicanism we have focus on providing the economic basis for the Political Health of the country. Economy and politics are merged here. And this results in a legal order that promoted certain kinds of economic activities. We tend to think of western settlement as something that just happened. But it didnt just happen. This is created through policy, through a vision of a legal order, where law is vested in this process of creating public lands, then making the public lands central and open for settlement. This is crucial to what is happening as people are imagining the good of the country, what the goal of government is at this period. Now the interest of certain members of the people then are being privileged, right . The people are those settlers, those farmers, those people who will go out and use the western lands, those are the people who are at the center of this legal order. But those lands then solidify also the relationship of the people to government. It is through those western lands that people are connected to government. So land is really, really crucial here. Now there are contradictions and limits with this conception of independence of this new legal order. Independence in jeffersons vision, it always needs help. There is no independent person in the early 19th century or the late 18th century. So independence, when theyre talking about it, it doesnt mean alone. Like today when we talk about independence, we tend to think im independent. Im by myself. People can live by themselves. You live by yourself. You go to the Grocery Store and you guy your feed and you microwave it. You cant do that here. You need people around you. And people who talk about independence in this period, they know that too. So when they talk about independence, theyre assuming also the presence of dependence. So a household head then is the independent person who oversees and directs the labor of all of the dependents in the household. And the dependents include his wife, children, hired workers and enslaved people. So independence requires a labor force and wives are seen as part of that labor force. Theyre crucial in providing domestic labor. You cant, like i said, go down to the Convenience Store and microwave it. You have food that you need to process and prepare. Women are involved for that and are considered responsible for the gardens, for producing all the clothes in the household, for arranging all the Domestic Work which is crucial work. You cant not do it and you cant just sort of purchase that. Children are also considered labors. This is why you have big families. You have big families because children are useful to work. You dont cherish them and send them to school and off to college. As soon as theyre old enough you put them in the field. They start taking care of younger enslaved people in those states are still legitimized in having slavery. Dependence could never be independence. Their legal status is that they could not own land. It could be the basis of independence. Dependence are locked in this position and status. Wives because of the property restrictions on that cant purchase lie. Enslaved people are property, they cant purchase. Land minor children also have restrictions that would make that impossible. People with that property are usually without property because they dont have the means to purchase land. It is difficult to acquire that by simply working for wages. Their legal status means that they basically cannot be independent. There is also the assumption here that all these people who are in positions of dependency, that they are dependent by nature. So, they are constitutionally incapable of actually ever being independent. To the point that it would even be dangerous to try this. So southern sleepovers in this period are saying we need to keep slavery because African Americans and this is their argument, naturally dependent by nature of race. Therefore, slavery is the means and institutions of disciplining, containing, protecting a nash really dependent population. This presumption of dependence, built into, it usually reinforcing that people are dependent because of who they are, and because of who they are is the reason why they are dependent. This kind of locks them into this position. Yet, still, all these independent men are themselves dependent on other peoples labor. They are dependent on this whole range of dependence. This is a central contradiction at the heart of jeffersons vision. Also at the heart of a lot of the legal policies in the new republic. A lot of independence talk. That presumes the presence of dependence. Those dependent people are still there, supporting the independence of others. So, now we are going to head into land policy. We are going to make western lands first public. Then we are going to turn them into private proud vertically magically through law. Law is crucial heres. So weve got the northwest territorial ordinance, i have to say its very hard to say. I am going to try to go slow, the Northwest Territories ordinance. 1787. Its one of the most important, yet really underrated pieces of legislation in the United States. The constitution. Yet the northwest territorial ordinance actually has some of the Key Assumptions that around the legal order in the United States, particularly at the federal level. This ordinance comes in 1780, seven same year as the u. S. Constitution. It made lands the possession of the National Government. It makes all the western territory of the possession of the National Government. The federal government. This is crucial because states were contesting over all of these lands. You have maps from the colonial period like north carolina, virginia, new york, they are protecting all the way up to the pacific ocean. They were claiming those lance. What the ordinance does is that it goes note, we are drawing boundaries at existing state. The New Territory doesnt belong to the states, it belongs to the federal government. Its the assertion of authority over that geographic space. But then, it says okay we are going to sell those length to the people. They are going to become owners. This is Pretty Amazing actually. In european nations there is the presumption that the land belongs to the monarch. It belongs to the governing, sovereign body. People have it, but its still belongs to them. Theres a whole array of land ten years in england and europe. You have lease holders, people who are free, theres an array of different kinds of land tenure. Theres also the presumption that the severance body owns those lands. You own them but your claim on them is not absolute. The layered Sovereign Authority that we talked about, another example of that. This idea that these are going to be public lands. We are going to sell them to people. They own them in fees simple. They have control over them. The government will seek control. This is something rather radical and new. Its a jeffersonian vision of actually handing over the means of supporting political independence, through economic means. They are also than tying the people to the new nation this way. Everybody has a piece of this new nation, and they are all part of that sovereign body. So then the territories also become states. This is also very cool and new. Remember, north america, colonial independent. This couldve happened in the United States, where you have the original 13 states, they are law, everyone else is going to be a colonial. Appendage we will go out there and mine your resources, will have people out there who are not politically involved in the nation. That will be the way it is. No, here you have the orderly, sort of process here by turning these territories into actual states. They are actually going to enter the. States the states are going to enter the United States on equal stand to the existing states. This is actually a leap of faith here. Imagine, you have the 13 colonies turn into 13 states. They have this whole revolution. Now you are saying okay we are going to add a new state. Oh really . Did they go through the revolution . Sorry, why do they get to be equal to the rest of us. This is this understanding that people moving west, and as they move west, where they are, that will be incorporated into the United States. Its this notion of the people being at the center of the legal order here. All the state governments, they will be similar to other states. They have to follow certain rules. Citizens in them are going to be like citizens and other states. Just because you are moving around the country does not mean you are going to go into some kind of lesser place. A colonial appendage where you are not going to be able to do the things you would in other states. This is really different. Its different from the situation with other imperial powers. Newly acquired lands are not going to be colonial appendage. Is the land in these other places still belong to the monarch even if it was owned by individuals. That is not the case here. It is made public, turned into private property. Again this happens because of this policy and law. Its not something that just happens. This is the way we are going to do it. Its a conscious decision. You see here the Northwest Territories. Ohio, indiana, illinois, michigan, wisconsin. This is what we are talking about. Independents here. Other elements of the northwest ordinance underscored jeffersons vision of independence. As part of the northwest territorial ordinance you have particle inheritance. You can divide up your property, will it to a number of people. Number these properties will be held in a way that provides and it has to be transmitted into the eldest son for instance. You wont have prima janitor. You wont entail it which means you can only keep it within the family. This will be property that you can divide up, and sell. You will be able to alienate this property of your own free will. Decide what you will do with it without a lot of restrictions. It sets aside land for public schools. Within each little district, territory that they set out, here theres a certain amount of lengths set out for public school. Again, underscoring jeffersons vision of the importance of a educated citizenry, public support for that as well. It bans slavery. This is on the basis that Small Farmers, would not be able to compete with slave labor. Again, jeffersons vision is that we need Small Farmers here. A lot of independent people. Not a lot of dependent people. Small farmers have to compete with these large plantations with slaves, instead of people, this is something that they will not be able to do. You will end up basically consolidated all of this property in the hands of a few. Not what he is going for. It also erases land claims. Opened up more land. Also eliminating overlapping claims to sovereignty in any given area. Where european powers talked about in other classes, clean land. Then allow also and acknowledge indians claims to sovereignty over that slant as well. This is not what is going to be happening anymore. This is going to the Northwest Territory ordinance. It challenges that older assumption about that layered sovereignty, layered claims to land. This will promote conflict. You saw that in what was aside. Today these are the kinds of positive statements about this is what the government does, that was lacking from the u. S. Constitution. You notice and talked about for the blogs in that. Class u. S. Constitution is a thin document there. Does it have a positive statement about what the government will do, its mostly about the organization of government, and what government will do. In here you have positive statements about what it will do actually. So the legacy here, as jefferson carves up, the midwest into these nicely arrayed blocks that they will now sell off to all of the nice little independent farmers in the United States, you see this when you fly over the midwest. Im always fascinated by this, looking out the airplane window going oh my gosh. They survey all this land. Theyre going to survey, it opened it up to settlement. Once you have here and this is winter in illinois. For the artifact that it was written onto that landscape, you could see jeffersons vision and the northwestern territories on the land that we still live on. All of those surveyed squares, are exactly what was done after the northwest territorial ordinance and those little plots of lines were exactly what was sold then. We still have had surveyed map on to the territory there. When you fly over, you say there is jefferson when i look at the midwest. I find thats so cool. There is actual physical representation of this. Its kind of amazing, that it lasted that long. And then jefferson, after the ordinance, he has more. He has the Louisiana Purchase. This is 1806, one of jeffersons most significant and injuring achievements. Everyone talks about we have the Louisiana Purchase and we toss it off. Yet, this is amazing. And more than doubles the size of a new nation. When you think about the implications of that, its astounding. To double the size, of a country and imagine how are you gonna get all those people in . In all that territory . This seems like a pretty big challenge. And giving the current debates over him immigration in here and europe, people are now thinking about the process of that, and imagine that to be a real difficulty. Heres jefferson, doubling more than double of the United States. We are people from within United States, and people coming to the United States included. Its Pretty Amazing. There is this optimistic vision of the country, one based on that faith, and that economic economics, hes able to gamble on that expansion, he thinks, its necessary for the basic order of this country. How president s did this, it was pretty controversial at the time. I believe this is overstepping president ial authority to be doing this, and jefferson was like whatever. He goes ahead and does this. Because he thinks this is so absolutely crucial, given the way he is understanding politics, law and economy here. He is really hoping hes going to secure the nations political future this way. This is his legacy to all of us. And subsequent law, established settlement of this land on similar terms is set out in the northwest territorial ordinance. Although the issue of slavery remains unresolved. Out of this Louisiana Purchase, if you continue to fly over the midwest, you still see all of the blocks of land, and the northwest territorial ordinance. But the Louisiana Purchase moved out, it didnt say anything about the status of slavery. This would become an issue, and well talk about this in future classes. What happens when the status of slavery, what happens those territories become states, becomes very crucial this whole question about federalism, but also between federal government and states, but who will actually control the status of citizens. What is interesting here, is a sideline, it does step in, and make a statement about the status of citizens. Eliminates slavery from that area. That is an early foray of the government, one that it backs off from after that. That too is contested actually. People who had already moved into the territory, had sleeves. So their people in illinois, indiana, wisconsin, ohio. This becomes contentious, and theres a lot of resistance, on state and local levels. Yes eaten . So even though none of them legalized slavery, could they hypothetically done that . There were actual conventions in illinois where they tried to do that, and indiana, it did not fly. They put out restrictions on slavery, they had apprenticeships lasting for a very long time. A grandfather in some enslaved people, there are people who are existing as virtual slaves, who are held for life. As long as they are held unless they challenge that legally, they are still held. Theres all these ways that people in the territories, get around this question of slavery. Illinois an interesting example, its right here in missouri. People go back and forth from missouri and illinois. He has, there actually is still slavery in these places, theres people who arent slated for life. But technically, no. You dont have slavery. But it is a debate. People are concerned and upset, in the territories, that they were not able to determine that. So yes its a contentious issue. Okay now we will go on to the conflicting aims of the people. The people are notoriously conflicted. There is no the people. As you will find out, increasingly overtime of this course, the more people you put into the category of the people, the more conflicts you will have. Its easy to have a very harmonious the people, if you restricted to a few folks who have the same interests. I want to start adding on, then you get more conflicts. We turn this land into public property, with the northwest territorial ordinance. We have called it public land for the benefit of the people. But who are these people who will be benefiting from this public land . Immediately, the distribution of public land gets really really complicated, because there are so many different people, count themselves as part of the public. Some people, some members, who count them selves numbers members of the people. They want to improve it. They wanted to be able to settle, a force establishing a claim, and purchase those claims and small parcels. Is a time honored way of making legal land claims. He owned a piece of property, you work it, and through the ways that you can prove the line, is the basis for a legal claim. You applied your labor to the line, because you have improved it and added value to it, this translates into a legal claim, that the courts recognize oftentimes, as a way to establish legal ownership to it. All the settlers who are moving across the proclamation line, which was a line that the british drew on the appalachian mountains, before the American Revolution all american colonists ignore that. Then all the American Congress are ignoring their own government, they continue to move west. What they are doing is fine, i can make legal claim to this line, through settlement itself. When im there the government should recognize my claim. We have all these people traveling across with the wagons, making legal claims to the lands. At least they think they ought to be able to. But we have manufacturing interest in the east, who are not eager to make lined too cheap and fear of losing their labor force. We have people who are on the east coast, they have their factories and businesses, what do they want they want cheap labor. While the labour goes west, than the price of labor rises. They dont like this idea. Theyre very doubtful about this jeffersonian thing anyway. Some people do not want to give away valuable land, to a bunch of people who they see as hicks, freeloaders. These are all the settlers that want to go settle and claim the land . These people that are arguing against that, called those people squatters. There is an iconography of these slack jobs who are sitting in shacks in the middle of nowhere, smoking corncob pipes and drooling on themselves, its put out that no we cant just give the land a way to these people. We are giving away the treasure of the United States, public property to these folks. We ought not to be doing this at all. We should be charging more money, and come up with a better plan and how we will actually capitalize on this incredible public treasure that we have. Others that plan to stay where they are, they dont want to prices so low that the federal government doesnt make any money on the deals. I got the east, and never gonna benefit from the western land, you know i and if it is if we charge enough money for, go to the public treasury, and rookies that money for other things. We should charge more money, not make this land cheap. We certainly should not give it away. And commercial interests and land speculators, who went in the west and wanted easy access and purchase policies, they wanted that to seize large plots of land. They want to be able to divide that up, and resell it at a profit. They were like no, lets open this up immediately, lets make these large and cheap, i can go in there because i have money, now buy that up, and resell it in smaller allotments to people. Lets go in there, and open this up right away, lets make this cheap. There are conflicts the slave holders began to fear that feel guys from the west, maybe getting those labels from the west we start adding more states to the union, that dont have slavery and are composed of all these ordinary Small Farmers, i dont think thats a really good idea. They are concerned about the balance of power between slave states and three states. That starts now, but it will become more and more of a problem overtime. We start getting sectionalism involved in this western several meant as well. Then might give you a series of land policies here, that try to sort through all these conflicts. Used to sign these as readings, but its kind of selfexplanatory what they mean. Now im giving them to you in the context of the lecture itself. The first thing is, a statute on a sale of public lands from 1829. This statute assumes that the lines were our public in the sense that they belongs to the federal government. Clear here, public lands belong to the federal government. Although the goal here is to disperse the lines to individual members in the statute, individual members of the public, the federal government decides when the land will be put up for sale. We are establishing this orderly transmission of public lines, to private individuals. If you wanted, youre gonna have to follow this procedure and process. The government has authority over this, it is going to set the terms for sale. Cant just move out there, this part of that battle between the folks we just want to move out and have the legitimate claims, and the governments like this is public line we get to decide you have to follow us. It also here in the statute, it assumes that it gets something, the federal government gets something, its not just got distribute here, it could be for the rest of the public was not living on those lands, will also benefit. This act allows the purchase of a full section, half sections of lands, quarter sections, and even half quarter sections. Which means that you have these big sections, you could divided up into smaller sections, which opens them up to smaller farmers. It is making this more accessible to more people, it is not doing the speculator thing, will actually allow hopefully smaller farmers, to get some access to these lands. It also prohibits a credit, for the purchase of any public lands, which is also provisions that is meant to cut down speculation. Speculators have access to credit, they will float credit, can access to this money, purchase huge swatches align and turnover and make a profit. No they said, only cash on the barrel. No creditor visa card. You have to come up with the money here. Course there is no visa and mastercard at this time, you take my meaning. They set the minimum price of a dollar 25 an acre, which is actually pretty high. Cutting the lines up and smaller plots, but its thats an added on 25 an acre, which is actually pretty high. Thats a lot of money in 1827. In fact, it will be very difficult for a lot of smaller farmers, to go out and purchase this. If you are poor, we have no property at all, this is out of the question. Theres no limit on the amount of land an individual can purchase. You see there, that this on one hand eliminates speculation, on the other hand we allow. Speculation like so many pieces of legislation, this is about compromise. You can see all of the elements of this debate and conflict, they are trying to resolve that within the context of statutes like this. That in fact, you still see of the competing parties and interests at play there. So the next act is, the title of it should alert you to what it is about. An act for the relief of the purchasers of public lands. The suppression of fraudulent practices right. This is 1829, weve just laid out for the orderly transmission of these lands right. 1830, we already have an act about fraud. Some members of the public are definitely seeing public land collectively. The federal government is passing all of the statutes, and people are still obviously doing what they think they are going to be doing. Quite apart from the federal government. This question about sovereignty, federal sovereignty, at play here right. Last lecture i was talking about the federal government was not really the centralized authority that people imagined it to be. At this important. It has authority, but it is new. Not everyone is on board with what its scope should be, what its scope is, what its authority should. Be here is a good case and point, federal government is passing legislation. All of these people are basically ignoring it. Many people form organizations that are designed land prices. They organized, they often do this through incorporation. They go incorporate themselves which is a legal act. To form incorporation, so they can bid to keep land prices down. So the move out to a place, when they show up for the auction, none of them bid. Oh gosh the land prices go down. They dont buy. They are not putting it up. They are collaborating, legally, in legal forms, in order to actually do something that is in opposition to federal law, right. And the belief that as members of the public they have a right to this land, they dont think of it is a public resource that should benefit elation. You think of people that are imagining themselves as part of the, people constituting the public, if you imagine yourself in that way, then public land is yours, because you are a member of the public. See, right . What they are doing, they imagine to be perfectly legitimate. They are thinking that the government is actually overstepping its boundaries, by doing things like charging them for this lead. Why would they charge the public for land when they are the public, right . This idea that people in the public think it is very blurry, it causes a lot of conflict here. The statute is stopping the collusion by groups of people who are trying to keep the prices down by breaking bids, doing other things. It is trying to come down on all of this. But, as you will see from the next statute, which is a preemption statute from 1830, they are not particularly successful here. Congress shoots of this fraud. People keep obviously moving out to public lands. This branch in statute is an example of many preemption statutes that were passed by congress that acknowledged prior claims to land made through settlement. This statute then gives insight into this whole area of conflict, whole other area of conflict over public lands. So, for these folks that term does not mean public lands. It does not mean that they are in possession of the federal government. It actually means that it doesnt possession of the public, right. So directly, rather than the government representing the public. It is the actual public. Its an interesting conflict here. Its one that we still have out with the use of western lands in particular. Many settlers then are entering these territories before the land are open for settlement sale. Fraudulent issue is part of that. The former corporation where they go out and settle lands before they are open for sale, with the idea that they are going to get the best lands before they are actually open. They are there before federal government opens them up. They will squat on this piece of land, and start working it under the presumption that possession is part of the law. Squatters come from that notion, you squat on this land. Its also seen as a derogatory term this time. Squatters. Squatting. Thats not something you say to someone if you want to be respectful. Whats interesting here is that the u. S. Congress offered accommodate people with the presumption statutes, this legitimate settlers claims to the land. To me this is fascinating. The settlers go out there, theyve been causing problems here since before the revolution. They were a thorn in britains side. The axis base that all of the problems of the seven year war. They exacerbated problems during the revolution. Now they are going out there again in violation of their own governments legal policies. Then they have the gall to come back Petition Congress and say by the way can you pass a law that acknowledges our claim to these lands. Then, congress does. Wow, thats very interesting. Instead of saying get, off we have sold them to someone else. Okay. I guess we will do that. This i think says a lot about the power of those people. Congress in fact does not really want to say no, because saying no to these people its not something they want to do. Its dangerous to tell members of the people who are using, acknowledged, customary legal claims of claiming land that they cannot do that. Congress does not do that. They then passed the statutes and say sure, you could have the land. It deals with these preemptions, from actually the 18 thirties, but it stretches back before, in parts of, you know the old southwest, two there are all of these people that are actually in these areas already, not even just settlers who moved into them. The u. S. Government is always that sort of dealing with these claims to land by people who are not there. This idea to that somehow this land is not the public. This is also a creation of policy, right. Its a fiction that the federal government has lobbied out there. A legal fiction. It can claim that land and redistributed. The fact, on the ground, the reality is messier. There are people that are already, theyre european people that are already, their french, spanish, british people that are. There also native americans that are there. We get to that in a second. Nonetheless, congress is still acknowledging preemption statutes of settlers that have in violation of lock on up there. They make preemption a general right in 1841. They say were not going to deal with this anymore. We will make this a general right. Basically the federal government said ok we are done trying to keep these settlers in check, suggest the power of the people here. You had mr. Jason, present a case in point. There is jason will throw up. Theyre looking very distinguished in that 19th century scary kind of way. Those pictures of 19th century people, its hard to imagine that the ever smiled or laughed i think. That is part of how they had to pose for their portraits, but somehow they always come across looking extraordinarily stern and earnest. He is really fitting the bill there. There is a Baptist Church. He is an upstanding member of kenosha, wisconsin. I know hes an upstanding member because the pictures that you can find in the wisconsin archives that have been digitized. They have jason loafer up all over them. Distinguished member of kenosha. But, he was not a legal squatter. He is basically a out. Love this is what an outlaw looks like right in the 19th century United States. He and his congregation settled in his wisconsin territory before it was officially open for them to do so. Max youre talking about this in your blog, we are basically you noticed that what low throw is doing is he is incorporating, hes incorporated to go out, which is a legal body, they incorporate, into this legal. Body they go out for the express purpose of undermining and not abiding by federal policy. They go out, and they settle in kenosha, wisconsin, essentially. They turn around and insist that the line that they had seized was actually there. They become basically the upstanding citizens of wisconsin as a result. The way they are portrayed as squatters, people that are in their hut, with their pipe, squatting. This is actually what a sweater looks like. You get a sense of why congress is so worried about crossing these folks, right. These are the upstanding people from older states, who then go out to newer, settled territories. They are demanding that their land claims be recognized. As part of the people, it gets hard to tell them no. Whats interesting here, aside from the actual portraits is that they are very legal list stick in their illegality. So long for up and his crew are suggesting that they have, will they have a deeplyheld alternative view of the lands. Its so fully entrenched in their minds that with they are doing is legitimate, it does not occur to them that what they are doing is illegal. Okay, of course we will do. This of course we will recognize that it is not illegal. They are turning their vision into something legal. They are able to do that because of the position and the people. They are forming that Stock Company to finance settlement. Its a legal document legal body. The group came out anyway. They are not following the term set up with the government. They insisted on a property, despite all of that. They form a Claimant Union that is organized around actually promoting the rights of congress, making sure that their rights are recognized. They are creating rights here. Those rights have legal basis. They are creating rights that they are hoping will be recognized by the federal government. That story is typical. You see it over and over and over and over. Congress is constantly dealing with these kinds of claims. It is shaping the law of public lands. You southern statutes. You saw the first thing in 1820, night the federal government said that this is what we are doing now, got it . Then you see in the 18 thirties, no, i dont think you understood, this stuff is fraudulent. Lets spell that fraudulent. No you ought not to be doing that. Please dont do. That 1830, okay, we will recognize your. Claims okay. Then they keep doing that, right. This is an ongoing debate, where these peoples claims are embedded into federal policy here. They are driving this. This is one of these spaces where people actually have contact with the federal government. In the last class i was saying oh yeah, not so much, you get the post, Office Veterans pensions. Western lands as the other place where people have contact with the federal government, and in territories. This is one place where the people are actually shaping federal policy in a very clear substantive way. But thats very different from native americans here. Native americans and up here as nations ultimately without land. Think about what i just said about jeffersons mission, right. Jefferson is about dividing up the land. Giving it to individual people, who then are part of that sovereign body right. The land is actually crucial to a nation. Its hard to have a nation, without some grounding in place. Essentially, through law, in this period, and the nations are created as something entirely different. As entities, national entities, without any land. It makes it difficult for them to have any kind of granting or basis. So land in the legal order is crucial here. The northwest territorial ordinance only applied to that. Territory the basic principle was guided land policies elsewhere. This nation whose political future is now based on expansion. More land is necessary to establish independence as the population growth. The governments goal is to distribute land to its people. Incorporate new areas into the nation. We have turned that into part of the purpose of government. I want to emphasize that here. I think we take that for granted. Of course that would be the way it was. That wasnt natural. But was an actual creation of la. A purposeful, deliberative decision thats that what government would do. Thats what the legal order would be centered around. In the new nations based on the situation that emphasizes private ownership of all land within its borders. We have a mission then that has a geographic border. But, that geographic border, within there are all of these private plots of land owned by individuals, who own them absolutely. There are restrictions of land, we will get into that, some next time. It is a very distinctive notion of the economic grounding of a nation, based on a certain vision of private property. That the, undermines established ways of dealing with limits. We have this border of the United States, its not a very good border. We have this border of the United States right. We have drawn it up into led portions that are owned by private individuals. Whereas before, you would have Great Britain claiming territory, but then allowing sovereignty of Indian Nations within it. In that sense, were moving away from an established way of handling layered claims to, land we are turning it into something were absolute, where there is no space for native americans, except for as owners of private property. Thats not the way they handle land. They dont want the pressures of private property, they want land on to which to situate their property. They are like france. Its france without an actual place, that makes no sense. That is not what native americans are going for here. They want to be private Property Owners within the United States, they want their own land for their nations. An issue here that is the legal reacher of land claims. This is a very difficult legal issue. If you start erasing some peoples land claims, and some peoples claims to private property, turns out you might be able to do that to other people to. The law here is very hard with property claims and law for it not to start sliding into other people. This is a difficult proposition to figure out how you extinguish some peoples claims to property, without having that legal precedent affect other Property Owners. If the United States government could take away property from native americans, it might also mean that we could do the same thing to other people, americans, right. This is very difficult. I want to stop here and talk about, let that power sink in. Its not like you can walk into a court and say oh were going to take property away from these people here because we dont like them. We dont like them because theyre indians. You cant do that. The principle is about the seizure of property. Not necessarily the status of the people. The principal seizure of property, could still spillover onto other folks right . This idea that we talked about last time but a universal understanding of law, with principles that apply to everyone right . This is the way these political leaders and Legal Leaders are seeing this. If you buy into that, and it makes a seizure of land of particular people, a dodgy proposition. Something that could be very dangerous. It takes a while to work through this, and we start working through this with the legal ratio of land claims in the Northwest Territories ordinance. It erases them by creating the line into the property of the federal government. Its all matters related to indians. Where read from article seven. Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to get government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The and most good faith shall always be observe towards the indians, their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent. And then their Property Rights and liberty they shall never be invaded or disturbed unless in just and lawful wars, authorized by congress, they always have that exception. But laws shall from time time to be made to be preventing harm to be done to them, and to preserve peace and friendship with them. The first time you realize this is acknowledging and you actually have to be nice to these folks. But no there is an underlying thing here. The lines belong to the federal government. The federal government now deals with native americans, so native americans are under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and the federal government will be the ones to protect them. This should give people pause a little bit, pushing native americans saying wait a minute, the federal government . Where we can imagine thats going to be very protective . Here no language seems good, but on the other hand that means following through here. Its a federal government protects them, then the lines will be acknowledged. This could go the other direction. Because the federal government is laying claims to these lines. Maybe, remember, were left out and i think i said this before, were left out of the treaty of paris, which seated the lines of the Northwest Territory, to the United States after the American Revolution. We have this whole treaty, and guess what, the people who own the lines look, they were not there. Back in a classic european, imperial way, they ceded control of those plans, to the United States ray, so its claims to those lands, or name americans actually lived, native immigrants are, their europeans claimed signed. They handed over to the United States. Theyre not telling native americans, now the americans have a new approach to the line, which does not allow that layered sovereignty of claims, but also recognition of other claims at the same time. Indians here also cannot under the territorial ordinance, dispose of their lands directly. They have to go through the federal government. So the federal government will not be the arbiter, the began to see you have to go through to deal with native americans, but also increasingly the entity that will be supervising native americans. So then we get into power of these issues. The power of the law to frame the issues. So as one of the key decisions, this is 1823. In affirms the principle of Indian Nationhood. Negotiations with indians is in the domain of federal policy, to establish that constitution, paul what that the Northwest Territories ordinance. That principle of nationhood, and negotiations of the air federal government, that is key. Its basically, constitution, Northwest Territory ordinance, is treating india nations like other nations. Just like the federal government deals with france, take the deal with the cherokee nation. Its not with states to treat within nations, thats what the federal government does. But indians may be nations, but a according to they have no land. How do you get around the fact that territory ceded was also claimed by indians essentially . Seated in the treaty of paris, claimed by indians. This is how you do it. Indian claims no matter, because they have already been conquered by european powers who claimed the land. Ive been a class, remember i said, law often rerights history, but always uses history as legitimization and president. Ive been saying, weve been talking about how european powers claim planned, but Indian Nations also claimed line, and that coexisted. European powers knew that the indians had claim. That was contested, and source of conflict to the extent of those claims, and where they overlapped, oftentimes european powers are trying to extinguish indian claims to land. There was that sort of vision, that possibility here. Now he is rewriting this and saying european powers came over and conquered. They conquered successfully. By the time the United States established, those claims of indians were already gone. Those are already extinguished, its not the United States fault, its the europeans fault. So yes, you could go back to the declaration of independence, those europeans, that folks. And among the other things that they did, were conquer and extinguish, indian claims to land. And therefore, the United States got titles to them in the treaty of paris. And also generally, outside the Northwest Territories as well, all in the inclusions or extinguished by european imperial powers. Way before, the American Revolution. Therefore, indians are nations. But they are inferior to other nations. They are different kinds of nations here. In this case, also casting interesting indians, the new republic is opposite. Indians are lesser nations, which are unfortunately lodged in the middle of the United States. This is going to be a conflict that you will have to resolve. You have to somehow make indians go away, because their presence in their current state, is not tenable. Indians have to leave the lines altogether, because they cannot coexist with whites, and they cannot live in the republic. This may sound simply about race, it is about race to a certain extent. But think about to that jeffersonian vision . Right this is about a vision of illegal order. If you have a country, based on this notion of plots of land, that are private property, it is harder than to have a vision that in the nations within that United States right . It is the logic of the legal ordinance being set up, that also makes indian presence within the United States problematic, in legal terms. Not just a matter of race, but a matter of the kinds of property regime that is at the root of the United States legal order. Not only does it reveal their republicanism, their self rule not extend to indians, indians are dangerous to this whole project of the United States the president is a different kind of they have to be dealt with. Then india nations here are also under the protection of the federal government. Were sending them into the protection of the federal government rather than on equal terms with the federal government. Theyre not like friends, their lesser than france. Theres still an independent nation, but not quite the same thing here. That protection can be less than comforting actually. Given the fact that these two cultures have been cast as a dire opposing battle to the death. The nation are reading this and saying here were seeing some of the conflicts separating out Indian Nationhood from those claims to the land. Im going to leave, have a big quote nominally view to read that. It is this justification of european conquering of indian lands. And the United States also being cast at the innocent in this. But the United States is left of the administration this situation created by europeans. Its this gesture, and the legal handling of indian land counts, they were throughout their hand saying if only the situation was not this, but legally they are the ones creating the situation, and putting it off on to the past, as the explanation of what is going on. And we get the cherokee nation, 1831, and exclusion. We set up indian asians, United States is being in conflict, in opposition, these two places these two people cannot inhabit the same place. And this then goes, not inevitably but ends up with the idea of exclusion. Turkey nation and georgia, this is what the seas are aligned and their removal. Their long history here, the chair came nations not being excluded from their lands, and being moved to oklahoma. And they are suing. The United States, refuses to hear the case. Because indians are gone and they are independent nations, that have no legal standing in the United States. This is exclusions of the people. Indian nations, as nation are separate, they are not part of the people. So now, the Indian Nation ive created their place under the protection of the United States. But in fact, they cannot sue the United States, to they are not members of the people. This creates a conundrum, for what there is no there is little way out. Plans are being separate from them legally and law, yet they cannot access the law, that is doing this. Because they are not part of the people. Think about the difference between jason roth rope, can go settle lands, and put his house down, and his Baptist Church down, and he gets legal claim to them. But native americans are classified legally as other nations, as other members of other nations, they cannot sue because they are not members of the people. They are under the control of the federal government, in this as this goes further than johnson mcintosh, he calls it domestic dependent nations. Think about that as a whole nation of jefferson. Jefferson is about independent farmers. Everyone else is dependent, and as dependent they dont have direct access to the government. Native americans are classified as domestic dependent nations, in a relation of dependency to the government, in a way that is legally to dependencies of wives, children, enslaved people, working people to their household heads. We have this sort of legal creation here, of these nations that are inferior nations, without land, but sporting aid to the federal government, which is actually not the relationship of the nations to each other. This is not how france or britain relate to the United States. Imagine if the french envoy went off and said thats why, we decided to turn you into an independent nation. I dont think france will be excited about that. Legally, Indian Nations are cast differently here. Not quite nations, but not members of the people. You get a sense of the growing frustration, from the documents that were signed you are signed today, so the indian saying wait a minute, this is our land, what is happening here. It seems so obvious to them, and illegal order, where they could claim lands in the colonial area, now that is going away. This new legal order, which is based upon an entirely different notion of public lands and property. Their frustration is palpable. They have no recourse in law, and thats what they need recourse in. This is all happening in a legal arena. We also have changes on the horizon. And we will end here, with contradictions in jeffersonian land policies. We have this legal order based on private property the distribution of land, the expansions, so we could this continue to distribute land. With the idea that this is good for the legal order of the country. We have all sorts of policies frame around that, the elevate certain interests, the interest of farmers over other interests. Manufactures are saying hey wait a minute, im not sure about this whole opening up the western lines. Excuse me, this is not what we had in mind. We are elevating farmers, theres still members of the people in the United States, but they are not at the center of things here. All of this legal order is not against our interest either. We have contradictions here coming up. Jeffersons egalitarian vision, assumes inequality for others. The language, the ideals, some of the promises of the revolution suggest otherwise. They suggest the people, more broadly framed. And most certainly what we talked about last time, in local government, is about more expensive definition of the people, in the sense of the expectations that a broader range of people, even people without rights, should have some say, in the regulation of the public order. Jeffersons visions is assuming this inequality. It makes land available, there are government has to take it from others. That inequality with native americans one, but his vision of independent households means that some people will always be dependent. That is crucial for supporting independence. His vision of independence, is building inequality, into his legal order of the system. And really profound, powerful ways. To, the availability of western line actually promoted the kind of development that jefferson really didnt want. So those who are interested in manufacturers and commerce, they quickly turned the availability of public land, to their advantage. There are the speculators, they are buying a plans, we are also seeing new markets. They would love transportation, to bring the goods from these new markets to the east coast, and bring goods from the east coast of these new markets. In fact, huge tracts of land are given over not over to land speculators who resell the land, but also corporations who are interested in improving the land. Railroads, ultimately acquire huge massive tracks of land, chief beneficiaries of this policy. They are given led free, with the intent that they will build railroads. And then actually that will benefit the Public Interest. So the Public Interest, year you begin to hear the shift. From the little Small Farmers, to the Public Interest is actually benefited, by building railroads. Handing over public lands to private corporations, because they will ultimately produce economic development, that will be in the Public Interest. In this jeffersonian line vision, you also have a shift here. Ultimately, from Small Farmers, to increasingly a manufacturing vision, which is actually more in line with hamilton ian lines. Finally, westward expansion for accentuates conflict. Conflicts over slavery. The issues about Northwest Territory no slavery, so slave holding leaders in those states are scratching their head and saying i dont know thats a good idea. Ultimately, adding on more and more territory, raises the question of slavery and the position within United States. Some people seeing slavery has been opposed to the grounding interest of the republic, and others seeing it as central. Western expansion only heightens those differences there. And actually puts conflicts in, and we can see republic as much as it strengthens it as much as jefferson really wanted to do. Within jeffersons vision, it sees the further change. And also the seeds of his own demise. I would leave you there, next time we will talk more about private property, in particularly, how you turn what was once seen as a public right, to private property. And the limits of private property. I will see you all next time, wednesday. We are featuring American History tv programs in primetime, as a preview of what is available every weekend on cspan 3. Thank you. The impeachment of