Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:44:29.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Demand for Land: The United States, 1820–1860

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Stanley Lebergott
Stanley Lebergott
Affiliation:
The author is Professor of Economics, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut 06457, and President of the Economic History Association.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The demand for land in the United States was shaped by inherited attitudes and modern asset creation. Immigrants inherited the view that landowners had an enhanced chance of survival in a “starving time.” But the United States farmer also found that by clearing his unimproved acres he could create assets from otherwise idle time between seasonal peaks in the use of family labor. Public land sales in the South from 1820 to 1860 correlate well with variables that reflect expected money return and supply price. Substantial residuals for 1835–1837 chiefly trace to specific policy actions in Washington.

Type
Papers Presented at the Forty-fourth Annual Meeting of the Economic History Association
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , June 1985 , pp. 181 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Fite, Gilbert, American Farmers, The New Minority (Bloomington, III., 1981), p. 1.Google Scholar

2 Mencken, Henry L., A Mencken Chrestomathy (New York, 1949), p. 362.Google Scholar

3 Lea, Henry C., A History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences in the Latin Church (Philadelphia, 1896), vol. 3, p. 51.Google Scholar

4 Because of space limitations a model for the North Central region and detailed estimates of bounty warrant sales (by region, date, and war) will be presented elsewhere.Google Scholar

5 Heng, Liang and Shapiro, Judith, Son of the Revolution (New York, 1983), pp. 114–15.Google Scholar

6 Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius (London, 1927), p. 353.Google Scholar

7 Logan, J. to the Penns, February 17, 1731. Logan Letterbooks, Historical Society of Pennsylvania. In the seventeenth century a saint wrote that “the most just cause of war” in Utopia was “when any people holds a piece of ground void and vacant to no good or profitable use, keeping others from the use and possession of it.Google ScholarSirMore, Thomas, Utopia in Elton, G. R., ed., Renaissance and Reformation, 1300–1648 (New York, 1976), p. 78.Google Scholar

8 Southard, Frank in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York, 1930), vol. 6, pp. 86–87;Google ScholarCando, William, The Geography of Famine (New York, 1980), pp. 114–15, 144–46.Google Scholar

9 Walbank, F. W., The Awful Revolution (Liverpool, 1969), p. 87.Google Scholar

10 “La famine amenait le cannibalisme encore au Xe siècle.” Polignac, Hedwige de, Les Polignac (Paris, 1960), p. 12.Google ScholarSorokin, Pitirim, Hunger as a Factor in Human Affairs (Gainesville, Fla., 1975), pp. 109 ff.Google Scholar

11 Linton, Ralph, The Tanala, A Hill Tribe of Madagascar (Chicago, 1933), p. 285. They defined from 2 to 6 days a month as unlucky. Children born on those days were buried in ant hills or plunged into boiling water. Another tribe kept population down by placing them in a field, then driving oxen into it to determine which would survive the trampling.Google ScholarSibree, James, The Great African Island, Chapters of Madagascar (London, 1880), p. 285.Google Scholar

12 Stendhal, The Life of Henri Brulard, chap. 18.Google Scholar

13 Aristotle, Politics, VI, 8, 1320 b.Google Scholar

14 Boyd, Julian, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (Princeton, 1950), vol. 8, p. 682. Hamilton declared that “the desire of being an independent proprietor of land is founded on… strong principles in the human breast.”Google Scholar

15 Jones, Alice, Wealth of a Nation to Be (New York, 1980), p. 104.Google Scholar

16 Commenting on the present paper, William Parker grimly adds, ownership may have produced the Civil War. It may have accelerated farm productivity as well. By contrast France compensated the soldiers of its revolution with state annuities. Jacobins had urged the option of public land. The argument? There would be “incalculable advantages …; from any measure tending to turn the soldier into a proprietor,” from Woloch, Isser, Jacobin Legacy (Princeton, 1970), p. 169. But that was not to be.Google Scholar

17 Lebergott, Stanley, The Americans: An Economic Record (New York, 1984), p. 15.Google Scholar In two years' work a farm laborer could save enough to buy a quarter section, land, horse, plough, and tools according to Fordham, Elias, Personal Narrative of Travels in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and of a Residence in the Illinois Territory, 1817–1818 (Cleveland, 1906), p. 211. At that rate six months of work would certainly permit buying 10 acres.Google Scholar“Michigan land having been principally purchased of the United States for cash, nearly every man in the State is a proprietor of the soil.” A Statistical Sketch of the State of Michigan (New York, 1838), p. 14.Google Scholar

18 Veblen, Thorstein, Absentee Ownership (New York, 1923), p. 135. Or, as an earlier writer put it: “Speculation in real estate has for many years been the ruling idea and occupation of the Western mind. Clerks, labourers, farmers, storekeepers, merely followed their callings for a living, while they were speculating for their fortunes. The people of the West became dealers in land, rather than its cultivators.… the great Western staple [was] the Progress of the Country.”Google ScholarMitchell, D. W., Ten Years in the United States (London, 1862), pp. 325–29.Google Scholar

19 Even in 1900 the modal farm had only 10 grazing animals, meaning that no more than about 5 acres were required to grow the hay and grain required by that number of animals. U.S. Census Office, Census of Agriculture, 1900 (Washington, D.C., 1902), part 1, pp. 370–71.Google Scholar Feed requirements in 1850 are from Lebergott, The Americans, p. 23. Pasture requirements are generously estimated, since the number of animals per farm was surely less in 1850 than 1900, and hay yields were higher in the North Central than North Atlantic region. Bogue describes settlers of prairie farms in Iowa in the 1850s as “in many cases purchas[ing] small timber lots often or twenty acres” from which they “sized out building timber or rails and cut firewood.”Google ScholarBogue, Allan, From Prairie to Corn Belt (Chicago, 1963), p. 48.Google ScholarNiles (June 18, 1817) estimates an average of one cord of wood per person. Seaman estimates 1.5 cords, while Gallman infers 4.4 cords in 1839.Google Scholar(See Gallman, Robert, “Gross National Product in the United States, 1834–1909,” in Output, Employment, and Productivity in the United States after 1800, Studies in Income and Wealth 30 (New York, 1966), p. 33.Google ScholarNorris, James in Frontier Iron (Madison, Wisc., 1964), pp. 45–46, 179 estimates that an acre of forest reproduced itself in 20 years, yielding 15 to 20 cords of timber a year in second growth.Google Scholar

20 “For the people throughout are set upon establishing their children in land estates, which is difficult to manage in the older parts, and hence the incessant migrations to the farther regions.” Schoepf, Johann, Travels in the Confederation, 1783–1784 (reprinted, New York, 1968), p. 36. The stream of fundamental inquiries by Yasukichi Yasuba, Richard Easterlin, Peter Lindert, and others has recently told us much about the links between fertility and landownership.Google Scholar

21 Bounty warrant price estimates of Natalie Disbrow, quoted in Swierenga, Robert, Pioneers and Profits (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1967)Google Scholar, Table 6.1. Paul Gates provides a graph of warrant prices in his History of Public Land Law Development (washington, D.C., 1968), p. 278. In a letter of January 30, 1979 he kindly informed me that his figures were chiefly for 160-acre warrants, drawn from the New York Tribune, Bank Note Reporters, and newspapers in the public land area.Google Scholar

22 For such market rates see Severson, cited in Lebergott, The Americans, p. 320.Google Scholar

23 See farm laborer wage data in Lebergott, , Manpower in Economic Growth (New York, 1964), p. 539 for the west Central region in 1850.Google Scholar

24 Cotton fields were picked over three times according to Gray, L. C., History ofAgriculture in the Southern United States to 1860 (Washington, D.C., 1933), vol. 2, p. 702.Google Scholar The picking spread over 122 days in later years, Shepperson, A., Cotton Facts (New York, 1906), p. 1. Picking and hauling hours are summed for the harvest period.Google Scholar

25 A two-week wheat harvest period in the 1850s (beyond which the grain would “get too ripe and fall”) is estimated by Marsh, Charles W., Recollections, 1837–1910 (Chicago, 1910), p. 70.Google Scholar See also Rogin, Leo, The Introduction of Farm Machinery in its Relation to the Productivity of Labor in Agriculture of the United States during the Nineteenth Century (Berkeley, 1931), p. 78.Google Scholar

26 Prairie Farmer in 1850Google Scholar, quoted in Gates, Paul, The Farmer's Age: Agriculture 1815–1860 (New York, 1960), p. 166.Google Scholar

27 For picking rates see Lebergott, The Americans p. 168. It is possible, but unlikely, that the early planters exhibited lower picking rates because they were gentler to their slaves than later ones.Google Scholar

28 For the ratio of horses to oxen by region, which proxies this change, see Lebergott, The Americans, p. 299.Google Scholar

29 As noted above the Illinois Central charged 3 percent on its lands while market rates ran 10 to 12 percent. Midwestern interest rates of 10 to 12 percent prior to 1860 are reported by Severson, while Southern rates of 10 percent and above were common. See sources in Lebergott, The Americans, pp. 320, 214–15.Google Scholar

30 Georgescu-Roegen has spoken of the “inherent idleness” in farming. “Should we try to find different agricultural activities which, if spliced, would completely eliminate the idleness of the farmer and his implements we will discover an insuperable obstacle. Nature forbid [man] stopping an agricultural process until it is completed.” Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas, The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), p. 252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 The constant impounds the value of farm buildings, and other improvements present in the total cash value. The census data are from DeBow, J. D. B., Statistical View of the United States (Washington, D.C., 1954), pp. 169, 220 ff. Excluded are the county in each state with the largest urban area—for example, Cook, St. Louis.Google Scholar

32 Towne, Marvin and Rasmussen, Wayne, “Farm Gross Product and Gross Investment in the Nineteenth Century,” Trends in the American Economy in the Nineteenth Century, Studies in Income and Wealth 24 (Princeton, N.J., 1960), p. 270.Google Scholar See also Gallman, “Gross National Product in the United States 1834–1900.”Google Scholar The labor time figures we use are from Primack, Martin, “Land Clearing Under Nineteenth-Century Techniques: Some Preliminary Calculation,” this JOURNAL, 22 (12. 1962), pp. 484–97.Google Scholar To the money wage figures 60 percent was added for the value of room and board. Lebergott, The Americans, p. 220.Google ScholarFishlow, Albert, American Railroads and the Transformation of the Ante-Bellum Economy (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), pp. 41–42 reduces Prunack's 33 days to 20, then estimates $10.60 per acre in the United States, 1850–60.Google ScholarAnon., Illinois in 1837 and 1838: A Sketch Descriptive of the Situation…of the State of Illinois (1838), p. 130Google Scholar quotes the superintendent of the Patent Office for $12 as the cost of clearing midwest timber land “leaving the roots.” One writer declared: “in wooded lands [in the west] the process is merely cutting down and burning off the brush and timber; the rooty surface is scratched with a harrow [and] the seeds deposited.” The Cultivator, 7 (1840), p. 103.Google Scholar

33 Gailman has kindly provided estimates from his ongoing work on United States capital formation. For 1850 these estimates vary by 30 percent as the percent of stumps removed is varied from none to all. Variation because of density is noted in Schob, David, Hired Hands and Plowboys (Urbana, Ill., 1975), pp. 10, 16.Google Scholar

34 Actually the net contribution by an adult son to a family is less than a year's wage if one reckons in the expense of raising children to the age at which they became self-sufficient.Google Scholar

35 The acreage cleared would represent almost pure capital gain if he, a family member, or laborer hired by the month, utilized time that would otherwise have been wasted. Where, however, the farmer hired the breaking presumably he thought an earlier start on a larger crop was financially advantageous. Prevailing views of the poverty of early farmers would suggest that such farmers did not hire much breaking. “A healthy man … in the first year might … clear and sow …ten acres.” Patent Office Report quoted by Danhof, Clarence, Change in Agriculture (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), p. 115. On forested land, Danhof noted earlier, he might take 10 to 15 years to clear the 40 acres. The prairie farmer might clear 80 acres in two years by hiring the breaking.Google Scholar See Carstensen, Vernon, ed., The Public Lands (Madison, Wisc., 1963), p. 264.Google Scholar

36 The multiplicity of these vanished proponents is revealed in Craven's, AverySoil Exhaustion as a Factor in the Agricultural History of Virginia and Maryland, 1606–1860 (Urbana, Ill., 1926).Google ScholarDanhof, Agriculture, p. 257, describes migration as a response to “failure of their techniques.” He adds: “Geographic mobility served as a cover for mental inadaptability.”Google Scholar

37 Bogart, Ernest, Economic History of the American People, (New York, 1933), p. 304.Google Scholar

38 Genovese, Eugene, The Political Economy of Slavery (New York, 1965), p. 89. “This one crop system perpetuated by slavery prevented crop rotation; the dearth of liquid capital made the purchase of fertilizer difficult; the poor quality of the implements that planters could entrust to slaves interfered with the proper use of available manures; and the carelessness of slaves made all attempts at soil reclamation or improved tillage of doubtful outcome.” In these, and other statements, he seems to imply that the preferred solution for the South required fertilizing older soils—but that solution was precluded by slavery. From this, may flow his inference that “The South had to expand, and its leaders knew it,” p. 260.Google Scholar

39 Ruffin, Edmund, An Essay on Calcareous Manures (reprinted, Cambridge, Mass., 1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 Primack, Martin, “Land Clearing Under Nineteenth-Century Techniques: Some Preliminary Calculation,” this JOURNAL, 22 (12. 1962), p. 144 stipulated 400 bushels as “enough”;,. 145 recommends 333; p. 182 argues for 250–300 on worn acid soils and suggests that more would in fact produce disease. See also pp. 101, 104, 98. On p. 199 he calculates $2 when marling at 259 bushels per acre. On p. 195 he estimates 1.75 cents per bushel. On p. 198 he estimates $3.57 for 400 bushels per acre. At a 350-bushel rate, the average of these three estimates (2.80, 6.10, 3.10) is $4.Google Scholar

41 On p. 127 he says that the increase of the first crop on worn acid soil is never under 50 percent and often as much as 100 percent. His experimental data, from pages 86–102 show: 27.5 to 33.25; 8 to 17; 7 to 13; 5 to 11; 7 to 16 and 22; 13 to 18; 7 to 12, 13, and 15. Thus, of 8 experiments, 5 report gains of 6 bushels or less.Google Scholar

42 Census of Agriculture, 1860 (Washington, D.C., 1864), p. lvi. We use the increment in bushels of corn and the price per ton of fertilizer from this source for Table 4 below. We do not refer to other fertilizers because their yield was inferior or price data were not given. The fertilizer advantage in corn, a major southern crop, should indicate the financial advantage in other crops: the many acres under corn would have been put under cotton or tobacco had the latter been more rewarding.Google Scholar

43 U.S.D.A. Technical Bulletin No. 1254, Pearson, R. W. et al., Residual Effects of Fall- and Spring-Applied Nitrogen Fertilizers (Washington, D.C., 1961), pp. 11–12. At a 150-pound rate nitrates produced 48 additional bushels of corn per acre in the first year, plus 19 more a year later. At a 100-pound rate the gains were 43 and 7 and at 200 pounds, something like 50 and 19. A 40 percent gain is inferred for the second year. These results lead to somewhat higher benefits from fertilizing than those suggested by Ruffin or Genovese.Google ScholarRuffin (p. 128) indicates that “the greater part” of marl does not begin to act before several years. Genovese (p. 94) asserts that “since the effects [of guano] were not lasting he [the planter] would have had to spend it regularly.”Google Scholar

44 A $20 per acre figure is based on the cost of improvement in Table 3 above, and a I dollar purchase price.Google Scholar

45 Gates, Farmer's Age, p. 172 reports a common yield of corn in Ohio of 50–80 bushels. Ruffin An Essay on Calcareous Manures, p. 133, suggests that “corn yielding 25 or 30 bushels to the acre [in Virginia] is doubled by many natural soils in the Western States.”Google Scholar

46 Genovese stipulates much higher costs than these: A minimum of $7.50 per acre for manure alone; guano at $10–20 per acre; and $800 worth of barnyard manure to restore one acre of Kentucky land. Political Economy, pp. 95, 91, 94. Had further allowances been made for the uncertain consequence of utilizing marl, given the then state of knowledge, that policy would have been still more unsatisfactory. Ruffin gives a litany of the injuriés that his favorite marl could do to corn if the wrong amounts were used. He clearly did not know what amount was suited to various types of soil. (An Essay on Calcareous Manures, p. 120).Google Scholar

47 Smith, Alfred G., Economic Readjustment of an Old Cotton State (Columbia, S.C., 1958), p. 97.Google Scholar

48 Odd, if indirect, confirmation of all this comes from Ruffin. To his own query “What distance from the pit may marl be profitably carried?” He replied: when “poor land abundantly supplied with fossil shells may be bought at from two dollars to four dollars an acre, a farmer had better buy and marl a new farm than to move marl even two miles to his land in possession.” Essay on Calcareous Manures, p. 146. But if poor Virginia land were worth buying at $2-$4, merely because its marl pits provided cheap fertilizer, would not Arkansas land at I dollar an acre be a still better buy? Its fertilizer had already been distributed by nature.Google Scholar

49 Betts, Edwin M., Thomas Jefferson's Farm Book (Princeton, N.J., 1953), p. 194.Google Scholar See also Jefferson's, Notes on The State of Virginia (Boston, 1832), p. 175: It is cheaper to cultivate an acre in a new field of tobacco than to manure an old one.Google Scholar

50 See also National Resources Board, Report of Land Planning, part 7,Google ScholarCertain Aspects of Land Problems and Government Land Policies (Washington, D.C., 1935), pp. 65 ff.;Google ScholarGates, Paul, Farmer's Age, pp. 80 ff.;Google ScholarGates, Paul, Landlords and Tenants on the Prairie Frontier (Ithaca, N.Y., 1973).Google Scholar

51 Shannon, Fred A., The Farmer's Last Frontier (New York, 1961), p. 71.Google Scholar

52 Gates, Paul, A History of Public Land Law Development, p. 207.Google Scholar

53 Gates, Paul, “The Homestead Law in an Incongruous Land System,” American Historical Review, 41 (07 1936), p. 662. Gates also emphasizes “land monopolization… in the middle eighties” for a California total of under 2 million acres. He alludes to a congressional report for the late 1870s surmising that 21 million acres in large estates were owned by foreigners. And finally he points to a 1913 estimate that Weyerhauser and some others held 12 million acres. But concentration for example, in the midwest in the 1850s did not necessarily continue until the northwestern concentration of timber holdings in 1913. See his description in National Resources Board,CrossRefGoogle ScholarReport, pp. 65 ff.Google Scholar

54 Historical Statistics, vol 2, p. 239 shows 1.9 billion acres from 1850 onward.Google Scholar

55 Oberly, James, “Acres and Old Men: Military Bounty Land Warrants, 1847–1860,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Rochester, 1982), tables 12, 17, 18, 30–32.Google Scholar

56 Soltow's percentages for the 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 95 and 99th percentiles ran as follows:.38,. 58,. 66,. 66,. 65,. 59,. 52. The marked increase from the 50th percentile to the 60th is puzzling, but does not seem to effect our conclusion.Google Scholar

57 United States Federal Trade Commission, National Wealth and Income (1926), p. 62. The FTC survey covered 40,000 estates probated in this period. Estates above $500,000 held 18 percent in land; those with $1000 to $2500 held 40 percent; and the entire sample held 33 percent.Google Scholar

58 Evans, Paul, The Holland Company, (Buffalo, N.Y., 1924);Google ScholarMcNall, Neil, An Agricultural History of the Genesee Valley (Philadelphia, 1952), p. 46.Google ScholarSwierenga, Robert, Pioneers and Profits: Land Speculation on the Iowa Frontier (Ames, Iowa, 1968), p. 227 argues the contrary, but his data, for one county, do not allow for possible differences in locational factors.Google Scholar

59 With a great deal taken in other “Western States.” American State Papers, Finance, 2 (January 1812), p. 525.Google Scholar

60 Quoted in Gates, Paul, History of Public Land Development, p. 266. Gates's Landlords, p. 240 describes “the Illinois suckers' propensity for hooking or stealing timber from nonresident or speculator-owned land.”Google Scholar

61 Gates, Farmer's Age, pp. 87, 85–89.Google Scholar

62 From $1.84 to $1.25. United States Congress, Debates and Proceedings, 8th Cong., 2nd sess. 1585.Google Scholar

63 Estimates based on sampling warrant records in the National Archives. These will be published elsewhere.Google Scholar

64 20th Cong., 1st sess., Memorial of Sundry Inhabitants of Michigan (April 1828), p. 3.Google Scholar

65 This enormous subsidy to millions of settlers has evidently been seen as trivial by some writers: “settlement of the West had proceeded but without strong assistance from the National government until the Civil War.” Weinstein, Allen and Gattell, Frank, Freedom and Crisis, An American History (New York, 1981), p. 508.Google Scholar

66 General Theory, pp. 150–51.Google Scholar

67 Bogue, Allan, From Prairie to Corn Belt (Chicago, 1963), p. 193.Google Scholar See also Governor Hammond's 1858 comment: “while the fertile regions of the Southwest are open to the cotton planter it is vain to expect them to embark… in improvements which are expensive, difficult or hazardous.” Quoted in Hammond, M. B., The Cotton Industry (New York, 1897), p. 85.Google Scholar

68 In which the relative cost of buying new assets compared to buying existing ones constitutes the stimulus to new production.Google Scholar

69 Marshall, Alfred, Principles of Economics (New York, 1946), V, xi, 3. A long tradition led merchants, India nabobs, and other English parvenus to buy landed estates. These typically earned less than the going interest rate.Google Scholar See Nicolson, Harold, Good Behavior (Garden City, N.Y., 1956), p. 188.Google ScholarStendhal, Life of Henri Brulard, chap. 18: “this mania has its source… in avarice, in pride and in the mania for nobility.”Google Scholar

70 People (May 16, 1977) p. 88. “Financed by a credit line on Jane's future earnings” the purchase was made by her husband. She was then planning a movie which, in her words, was “about a man and a woman who want nothing more than to own a piece of land and be left alone.”Google Scholar

71 “The argument for this rule is simple: when investment is reversible then the firm can buy a unit of capital goods, use it and derive its marginal product from an arbitrary short time span, and then sell the undepreciated portion, possibly at a different price.” Arrow, Kenneth, “Optimal Capital Policy with Irreversible Investment,” in Wolfe, J. N., ed., Value, Capital, and Growth (Edinburgh, 1968).Google Scholar

72 See his From Prairie to Corn Belt (Chicago, 1963), p. 51. The omitted words are: “of the size he thought necessary for his farming operations, and then tilled the farm.” See the many examples in Swierenga, Pioneers, pp. 11–17.Google Scholar

73 Billington, Ray A., “Frontiers,” in Woodward, C. Vann, The Comparative Approach to American History (New York, 1968), p. 84.Google Scholar

74 Gates, Farmer's Age, p. 81.Google Scholar

75 The Immigrants Guide to Minnesota in 1856, by an Old Resident (St. Anthony, Minn., 1856), p. 68.Google Scholar

76 A similar model for the North Central region, and derivation of the necessary bounty land data will, it is hoped, be presented elsewhere. (Bounty locations, if added to cash sales in the south, yield similar conclusions to those reported here.)Google Scholar

77 DeBow, Statistical View, p. 176. Of the considerable acreage under corn most produced an intermediate product consumed by slaves and animals.Google Scholar

78 The classic article by Cole, Arthur, “Cyclical and Sectional Variations in the Sale of Public Lands, 1816–60,” Review of Economics and Statistics (January 1927), pp. 41–53, graphed sales against current rather than deflated cotton prices.Google Scholar See also North, Douglass, The Economic Growth of the United States 1970 to 1860 (New York, 1961), p. 124.Google Scholar

79 Boston Prison Discipline Society, Second Report (Boston, 1827), p. 40.Google Scholar

80 Davis, Andrew M., The Origin of the National Banking System (Washington, D.C., 1910), pp. 15, 24. Davis estimates 6 types of notes per bank, which are mutliplied by his count of banks.Google Scholar

81 Investments in sterling were, inevitably, affected by variations in exchange rates.Google Scholar

82 For 1819 to 1856 see Homer, Sidney, A History of Interest Rates (New Brunswick, N.J., 1963), pp. 286–87, 299.Google Scholar For 1857 to 1860 see Macaulay, Frederick, Some Theoretical Problems Suggested by the Movements of Interest Rates, Bond Yields and Stock Prices in the United States since 1856 (New York, 1938), pp. A 174 ff. A few missing years were interpolated by Homer's United States Federal Government rates.Google Scholar

83 Lebergott, The Americans, p. 28.Google Scholar

84 United States Treasury, Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance of the United States (March 1900), p. 2595.Google Scholar

85 47th Cong., 1st sess., S.D. 196, Statement of Appropriations and Expenditures 1789 to 1882 (Washington, D.C., 1882).Google Scholar

86 Because investors are assumed to recognize that reporting and sampling errors occur in price reports, changes of less than 2 percent are excluded as probably not significant for investors.Google Scholar

87 The price varied only trivially by auctions of choice parcels. In practice “the government” turns out to be a set of individuals. The record is filled with auctions in which government officials “allowed” buyers to prevent bids over $1.25. They then reauctioned the land among themselves, sharing the excess value. See the lively tale of Chocchuma, in 23rd Cong. 2nd sess. H.D. 22, Commissions and Letter of Instructions (Washington, D.C., 1834).Google Scholar

88 The 85 percent figure is derived from our sampling of approximately 4,190 warrants in the National Archives.Google Scholar

89 The 85 cent average price at which warrants sold is computed from the data of Natalie Disbrow. See Swierenga, Pioneers, p. 145.Google Scholar

90 From 1820 to 1831, 80 acres at $1.25; from 1832 to 1847,40 acres at $1.25; from 1847 to 1853, 40 acres at 85 cents, the price at which bounty warrants could be purchased.Google Scholar

91 Ware, Nathaniel, Notes on Political Economy (1844; reprinted, New York, 1967), p. 232.Google ScholarYoung, Mary, Redskins, Ruffle Shirts and Rednecks (Norman, Okla., 1961) is an outstanding review.Google Scholar

92 As late as the 1860s Dodge, Grenville, How We Built the Union Pacific (Council Bluffs, Iowa, 1888), pp. 38–39, describes how “General Casement's track train could arm a thousand men at a word…commanded by experienced officers.”Google Scholar

93 Space does not permit a review of the results for other variables in the model, some of them empirically quite significant.Google Scholar

94 Treasury Department, Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance (March 1900), p. 2595.Google Scholar

95 Gilbart, James W., The Principles and Practices of Banking (London, 1873), pp. 55, 214.Google Scholar

96 Morrell, Philip, ed., Leaves from the Greville Diary (New York, n.d.) pp. 162, 177, 186.Google Scholar

97 Imlah, Albert, Economic Elements in the Pax Britannica (Cambridge, 1958), pp. 70–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

98 The Merchants Magazine and Commercial Review, 13 (1845), p. 470.Google Scholar

99 Callender, Guy C., “State Enterprise and Corporations,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 17 (11 1902), p. 142.Google Scholar

100 Rae, John, The Sociological Theory of Capital (1834; reprinted, New York, 1905), p. 319.Google Scholar

101 23rd Cong., 1st sess., H.D. 2, Message, Taney Letter, p. 32.Google Scholar

102 On the role of “pet” banks in financing the American Land Company, and Whig leaders as well, see Gates, Public Land Law, pp. 171–73.Google Scholar

103 Mason, J. in 25th Cong., 2nd sess. H.D. 82, Cherokee Indians (1838), p. 4.Google Scholar

104 26th Cong., lst sess., S.D. 1, Message of the President (Washington, D.C., 1839), pp. 428–30.Google Scholar