Settlers as Conquerors: Free Land Policy in Antebellum America (Transatlantische Historische Studien, No. 58) by Julius Wilm

Abstract

Reviewed by: Settlers as Conquerors: Free Land Policy in Antebellum America (Transatlantische Historische Studien, No. 58) by Julius Wilm Katrine Barber SETTLERS AS CONQUERORS: FREE LAND POLICY IN ANTEBELLUM AMERICA (TRANSATLANTISCHE HISTORISCHE STUDIEN, NO. 58) by Julius Wilm Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany, 2018. Illustrations, maps, tables, notes, bibliography, index. 284 pages. Cloth €52.00. Understanding Oregon’s past demands a knowledge of the 1850 Donation Land Claim Act (DLCA) and the enticement of free or low-cost land at what would become the nation’s far western edge. Why else would people risk crossing the continent to new, raw communities then just being knit to the nation? The journey West and the founding families that benefitted from the DLCA have populated numerous books, movies, and museum exhibits. Decades of congressional debates, the details of policies they rejected, and those they eventually passed to distribute Western lands have garnered less attention. But Julius Wilm’s fascinating, nuanced study should reinvigorate interest. It certainly places the DLCA — too often treated in isolation — into the broad, complex context of the nineteenth century’s free land movement. Employing the underused twenty-eight volumes of The Territorial Papers of the United States and newly accessible digitized records that make his statistical and geographical analysis of land claims possible, Wilm sets out to provide an “update to the public land histories” and “bring an understanding of the complicated and contradictory policies and economics of land distribution” within settler imperialism (p. 20). The result is a compelling investigation of antebellum free land policies, especially the Florida Armed Occupation Act (1842), the Donation Land Claim Act (1850), and state-led policy in Arkansas. Between 1789 and 1829, Congress debated six free-land proposals, although none passed. Proponents touted free land as a way to tie lower classes to the nation and induce their loyalty. They argued that such policies would create tax-paying patriots whose actions on behalf of their own interests would align with those of the nation. Furthermore, by drawing “reliable populations” into frontier spaces, such policies would “solve imperial crises,” such as conflicts between imperial nations and between the United States and tribal nations (p. 54). Opponents feared that free lands could jeopardize the value of property and erode the work ethic of beneficiaries. More critically, the federal government’s sale of lands was fiscally important. Wilm asks what factors made these proposals “conceivable” enough to merit debate despite the often-vigorous opposition to them. He points to the specter of Indigenous violence, sometimes real but often manufactured, that proponents used to raise support for free lands. Wilm argues that “the free land proposals in Congress promised to create a demographic foundation for white control over populations that were seen as too multi-ethnic and for displacing Indian nations” (p. 54) and were based in “extreme anti-Indian racism” (p. 257). Although ultimately unsuccessful at overcoming opposition, the debates over free-land policies moved the needle as proposals were becoming increasingly popular with the electorate, especially in the expanding West. Wilm tracks the negotiations of successful proposals in the state legislature of Arkansas, and federal programs in Florida and Oregon. Federal proposals rested on claims that armed settlers could resolve otherwise uncontrollable Native violence against American interests. This was especially true in Florida, where armed settlers were to conclude the costly Second Seminole War. In Oregon, Great Britain was also a threat, and settlers were encouraged to migrate to tip the scales against British claims, with the promise of land to follow. After establishing Congressional passage of new land policy, Wilm analyzes how successful it was in light of its original aims and its impact on Indigenous people. He argues that any “emancipatory potential of the concept of [End Page 401] free land” for middling-to-low-income settlers was never as important as the government’s interests when implementing policies, and he then breaks down the policies’ effects county-by-county and demographically (p. 155). Arkansas politicians hoped that free land would increase the state’s population and rate of development. Although records are spotty, Wilm finds that they succeeded. Florida’s free-land program was limited to a single year and included...