JONATHAN J. BEAN
Marketing "the great American
commodity": Nathaniel Massie
and Land Speculation on the
Ohio Frontier, 1783-1813
Few figures in early American history
are as controversial as the land spec-
ulator. The land speculator has been
portrayed as both a parasitical landlord
and an important figure fostering the
economic development of the frontier.
The career of Ohio land speculator
Nathaniel Massie highlights the problems
faced by those engaged in land development
in the early national period.
Public policy played an important role
in determining the changing fortunes
of Massie's real estate empire. Massie
used his influence to secure internal
improvements on his land, but eventually
the combined political weight of
Ohio settlers limited the gains made by
Massie and other land speculators.
Historiography
During the first half of this century,
historians held a low opinion of land
speculation. Many scholars described it
as a disease infecting the entire popu-
lation. Large-scale speculators bought
thousands of acres, while farmers ac-
cumulated more land than they could
cultivate. All segments of society
sought "something for nothing."
Thorstein Veblen described land speculation
as one example of the absentee ownership
ideal of Americans. Americans, he
argued, were driven by a "passion
for acquisition." According to these histo-
rians, speculators served no useful
purpose. Frederick Merk referred to them
as "parasites" who engaged in
all sorts of fraud, while Paul Wallace Gates
criticized settlers who were
"distracted ... from the business of making farms
in the wilderness."1
Jonathan J. Bean received his Ph.D. in
history from The Ohio State University in 1994,
where he wrote his dissertation
"Beyond the Broker State: A History of the Federal
Government's Policies Toward Small
Business, 1936-1961."
1. Paul Wallace Gates, "The Role of
the Land Speculator in Western Development,"
Pennsylvania Magazine of History and
Biography, 66 (July, 1942), 315-16;
Malcolm J.
Rohrbaugh, The Land Office Business:
The Settlement and Administration of American Public
Lands, 1789-1837 (New York, 1968), 301; Everett Dick, The Lure of the
Land: A Social History
of the Public Lands from the Articles
of Confederation to the New Deal (Lincoln,
Nebra., 1970),
Nathaniel Massie and Land
Speculation
153
These critics charged the speculator
with a long list of sins. Colonial mer-
chants and planters formed a business
aristocracy and manipulated the gov-
ernment to secure large grants of land.
Speculators were "on the make," and
as businessman-politicians passed
legislation promoting their speculations.
Charles Beard argued that the framers of
the Constitution designed it to pro-
tect western land speculation by
creating a government strong enough to
eliminate the Indian threat. Thomas P.
Abernethy accused speculators of fi-
nancing the frontier secession movements
of the 1780s, while Paul W. Gates
argued that speculators fought endlessly
over the site of county seats and state
capitols. Speculators also bribed
government officials for advance notice of
land sales. In short, speculators were
the insider traders of the eighteenth cen-
tury.2
These historians believed that early
public land policy favored the specula-
tor at the expense of the family farmer.
The sale of public land on credit, for
example, allowed speculators to buy land
and then re-sell it at a higher price
to settlers. Speculators also allegedly
withheld land from market, hoping for
higher prices. These land monopolies (or
"speculator's deserts") hampered
transportation and hindered settlement.
In the late nineteenth century, Henry
George argued that poverty was caused by
land speculation. As speculators
monopolized land, rents increased and
many tenants fell into poverty. The
speculator was also a "loan
shark" who exacted an usuriously high interest
rate from settlers. Delinquent settlers
often lost their land and became squat-
ters or tenants. The speculator paid
little in taxes, thus forcing a dispropor-
tionate tax burden upon the farmer.
Progressive historians argued that specula-
tion created an unequal distribution of
wealth which led to class conflict. Roy
H. Akagi saw a conflict between
residents and absentee landowners in eigh-
teenth century New England, while Irving
Mark highlighted tenant-landlord
conflict in colonial New York.3
During the 1940s and 1950s, historians
began to revise this negative inter-
pretation of land speculation. In 1945
Ray Billington argued that historians
51-66; Thorstein Veblen, Absentee
Ownership and Business Enterprise in Recent Times: The
Case of America (1923; rpt. New York, 1954), 139. Frederick Merk, History
of the Westward
Movement (New York, 1978), 117.
2. William T. Utter, The Frontier
State: 1803-1825. The History of the State of Ohio, vol. 2
(1942; rpt. Columbus, Ohio, 1968), 128;
Charles A. Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the
Constitution of the United States (1913; rpt. New York, 1939), 23; Thomas P. Abernethy,
Western Lands and the American
Revolution (1937; rpt. New York,
1959), 336-39; Gates, 330;
Rohrbaugh, 299.
3. Dick, 10-11; Abernethy, 368-69; Dictionary
of American History, s.v. "Land
Speculation"; Utter, 131, 135; Roy
H. Akagi, The Town Proprietors of New England: A Study of
Their Development, Organization,
Activities and Controversies, 1620-1770 (1924;
rpt.
Gloucester, Mass., 1963), 218, 226-27,
299; Henry George, Progress and Poverty: An Inquiry
into the Cause of Industrial
Depressions .... (1880; rpt. New York,
1955), 255-60; Gates, 327-
28; Rohrbaugh, 299; Irving Mark, Agrarian
Conflict in Colonial New York, 1771-1775 (Port
Washington, N.Y., 1965).
154 OHIO HISTORY
had overlooked the speculator's positive
role in frontier economic develop-
ment. Speculators located the best land,
improved transportation, and offered
credit to farmers.4 In 1957
Allan and Margaret Bogue conducted the first
quantitative study of mid-nineteenth
century land speculation. Their study
showed that speculative profits varied
widely, but they cautioned that further
studies were necessary before making
generalizations about speculative gains
or losses.5
The trend toward revisionism continued
into the 1960s. In 1961 Charles S.
Grant challenged the view that New
England's eighteenth-century town pro-
prietors exploited settlers. Grant
rejected Akagi's notion that these proprietors
formed an aristocratic elite. Town
leaders were self-made men who used their
political influence to secure funding
for roads and bridges. Grant also stressed
the economic opportunity which land
speculation provided since nearly every-
one could purchase land on credit.6
In 1968 Robert P. Swierenga came out
with his Pioneers and Profits: Land
Speculation on the Iowa Frontier,
an important quantitative study of
mid-nineteenth century land speculation.
Swierenga showed that speculators
encouraged settlement by offering credit,
employing local residents, and bearing a
disproportionate share of the tax bur-
den. Swierenga also believed that
historians may have overestimated the hos-
tility of settlers toward the
speculator. Speculators tried not to antagonize a
community, and they preferred to extend
the terms of a loan rather than fore-
close on a contract. The election of
speculators to public office also indicates
that they enjoyed some public esteem.7
In recent years, economic historians
have turned the progressive interpreta-
tion of land speculation on its head by
arguing that public land policy favored
the settler at the expense of the
speculator. The credit system, coupled with
preemption acts, encouraged too much
settlement, rather than too little.8
Furthermore, several scholars have
disputed the existence of land monopolies.
Stanley Lebergott has shown that large
land holdings accounted for less than
five percent of the public domain. Lebergott
also attacks the notion that pub-
lic land prices were too high for most
settlers, noting that in 1800 the average
farmer could purchase ten acres for only
one percent of his annual income.
With so much cheap land available, many
farmers became successful specula-
4. Ray Allen Billington, "Origin of
the Land Speculator as a Frontier Type," Agricultural
History, 19 (1945), 204-12.
5. Allan G. and Margaret Bogue,
"Profits and the Frontier Land Speculator," Journal of
Economic History, 17 (March, 1957), 1-24.
6. Charles S. Grant, Democracy in the
Connecticut Frontier Town of Kent (New York,
1961), 143, 152, 22.
7. Robert P. Swierenga, Pioneers and
Profits: Land Speculation on the Iowa Frontier
(Ames, Iowa, 1968), 227, 214-16.
8. Douglass C. North and Andrew R.
Rutten, "The Northwest Ordinance in Historical
Perspective," Essays on the
Economy of the Old Northwest, eds. David C. Klingaman and
Richard K. Vedder (Athens, Ohio, 1987),
29-31.
Nathaniel Massie and Land
Speculation
155
tors (during the eighteenth century, the
average farmer owned between 100 and
150 acres, far greater than the ten
acres needed to support a typical family of
five). Lebergott believes that the
speculator's profit on loans to farmers added
little to the cost of land (he estimates
that the annual interest charge per acre
amounted to one half day's labor).9
Finally, during the eighteenth century,
speculators faced a buyer's market in
land. Speculators could secure large land
grants, but their land was worth little
unless it was settled. Bernard Bailyn,
for example, has noted the cutthroat
competition among speculators for set-
tlers.10
Revisionist historians emphasize the
political influence of the settlers.
Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick argue
that Ohio squatters and farmers
elected a Democratic-Republican majority
to the state legislature and then de-
manded preemption rights. The
legislature also imposed high property taxes
on absentee landowners. Settlers fixed
bids and intimidated speculators at
public auctions. Nonetheless, despite an
abundance of cheap land, squatting
was rampant. One of the largest land
speculators in Ohio, John Cleves
Symmes, was "no match for a
thousand ruthless frontier manipulators."11
The revisionists view public land policy
as inconsistent. On the one hand,
the government sold land at below market
value, thus benefiting both farmers
and speculators. Yet, other governmental
policies restrained land speculators.
Bounty warrants, for example, created
opportunities for speculation, but the
government often flooded the market with
new issues and therefore specula-
tors did not fully invest in land.12
Although ostensibly designed to favor
the settler, public land policy en-
couraged an overinvestment in
agriculture and many farmers were unable to
support themselves. An "easy"
land policy resulted in the inefficient use of
resources and actually hurt those
farmers who were encouraged to settle far
from eastern markets. These farmers put
land into use prematurely and, as a
result, many lived a miserable
existence.13
9. Stanley Lebergott, The Americans:
An Economic Record (New York, 1984), 81, 17;
Stanley Lebergott, "'O Pioneers':
Land Speculation and the Growth of the Midwest," Essays
on the Economy of the Old Northwest, eds. David C. Klingaman and Richard K. Vedder
(Athens, Ohio, 1987), 37-38, 43, 49. See
also, Douglass C. North, Terry L. Anderson, and Peter
J. Hill, Growth and Welfare in the
American Past: A New Economic History (Englewood Cliffs,
N.J., 1983), 120.
10. Bernard Bailyn, Voyagers to the
West: A Passage in the Peopling of America on the Eve
of the Revolution (New York, 1986), 578-80.
11. Lebergott, "'0 Pioneers,"'
50-51; Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick, "A Meaning for
Turner's Frontier Democracy in the Old
Northwest," Turner and the Sociology of the Frontier,
The Sociology of American History Series
(New York, 1968), 120-51; Bailyn, Voyagers, 597,
373-90.
12. Lebergott, "'0 Pioneers,"'
43-50.
13. R. Taylor Dennen, "Some
Efficiency Effects of Nineteenth-Century Federal Land
Policy: A Dynamic Analysis," Agricultural
History, 51 (1977), 718-36; Terry L. Anderson,
"The First Privatization
Movement," Essays on the Economy of the Old Northwest, eds. David
C. Klingaman and Richard K. Vedder
(Athens, Ohio, 1987), 65-68.
156 OHIO HISTORY
The two schools of thought have very
different attitudes towards early
American capitalism. Progressive
historians believed that speculators were
motivated by sheer greed, and they
argued that stricter government control
would have resulted in a more rational
administration of land sales. The revi-
sionists, on the other hand, see a
virtue in the profit motive which drove land
speculators. Thomas C. Cochran notes
that land became the "great American
commodity" and provided economic
opportunity for nearly all. Cochran be-
lieves land speculation was also
important in the development of American
business society. According to Cochran,
capitalist values permeated early
American society.
"Businessmen-farmers" reinvested their surplus in addi-
tional land and even squatters were
"potential capitalists." Americans became
optimists undaunted by failure and
willing to take risks in their pursuit of
profit. 14
Revisionist historians have largely
focused upon nineteenth century land
speculation (where records are more
abundant). Yet, scholars also need to ex-
amine earlier episodes of land
speculation in order to test the theories of the
revisionists. The late-eighteenth
century is one period that deserves greater at-
tention. America witnessed a veritable
land frenzy in the post-Revolutionary
period. Eighteenth century Americans
knew that land speculation could be
very profitable, and thus nearly every
segment of society, from the lowly
squatter to the largest land baron,
engaged in the buying and selling of land.
The American Revolution created many new
opportunities for land specula-
tion. The bounty land granted to war
veterans, for example, quickly fell into
the hands of speculators. During the
Revolutionary War, the Continental
Congress and the various states had
enticed enlistees with offers of money and
land. The land bounties were far more
attractive than rapidly depreciating
money. Virginia was especially generous
with her offers of land, and the state
granted over six million acres, an
amount greater than all other U.S. bounties
combined. When Virginia ceded her
western region to Congress in 1784, the
state retained the rights to enough land
to meet these bounty commitments.
Virginia set aside a military reserve in
Kentucky, but if those lands proved in-
sufficient, bounties would be located
north of the Ohio River.15
Most veterans had little interest in
settling the frontier. Speculators, on the
other hand, became very interested in
western land because military warrants
14. Thomas C. Cochran, Business in
American Life: A History (New York, 1972), 67-70,
14-16.
15. Norman J.W. Thrower, Original
Survey and Land Subdivision: A Comparative Study of
the Form and Effect of Contrasting
Cadastral Surveys. Monograph Series of
the Association of
American Geographers, vol. 4 (Chicago,
1969), 43n; "Virginia's Cession of Western Lands to
the United States, December 20,
1783," Henry Steele Commager, ed., Documents of American
History, 7th ed., 2 vols. (Englewood, N.J., 1963), 1:120-21.
Virginia bounties ranged from 100
acres (for a private) to 15,000 acres
(major-general). Payson J. Treat, The National Land
System: 1785-1820 (1910; rpt. New York, 1967), 329.
Nathaniel Massie and Land
Speculation
157
sold for only twenty to thirty cents per
acre.16 Moreover, warrants were an
ideal vehicle for speculation because
they were transferable and could "be re-
moved and relocated at pleasure"
until the owner was satisfied with his land.
Warrants were also divisible and any
unused acres could be included on
smaller "exchange warrants."
Warrants could also be combined to purchase
large tracts of land.17
Massie and the Speculators
Frontier land speculation provided an
outlet for the energies of ambitious
young men such as Nathaniel Massie.
Massie was born in Goochland
County, Virginia (near Richmond), in
1763. He fought briefly in the
Revolutionary War and then returned home
to study surveying. In 1783 his
father, a wealthy farmer, gave him some
Kentucky land and Massie headed
west to pursue a surveying career.
Surveying was a common way to begin a
career in land speculation.18 As
a surveyor and land broker, Massie
located military warrants for his Virginia
clients.19 He also acted as
an agent for James Wilkinson, one of the most ac-
tive land speculators in Kentucky.
Massie surveyed land for Wilkinson and
handled his speculations in salt (a
valuable commodity on the frontier).20
Massie increased his business by
clerking for Colonel Richard C. Anderson,
the principal surveyor for Virginia's
bounty lands. Many Virginians had en-
trusted Anderson with their warrants and
he gave many of these to Massie to
survey. Massie received a hefty
commission of between 25 and 50 percent of
the warrant value.21
16. William Thomas Hutchinson, The
Bounty Lands of the American Revolution in Ohio
(New York, 1979), 203.
17. Andrew R.L. Cayton, The Frontier
Republic: Ideology and Politics in the Ohio Country,
1780-1825 (Kent, Ohio, 1986), 54; Hutchinson, 110-11.
18. For a discussion of the relationship
between surveying and speculation, see Sarah S.
Hughes, Surveyors and Statesmen: Land
Measuring in Colonial Virginia (Richmond, Virginia,
1979).
19. John McDonald, Biographical
Sketches of General Nathaniel Massie, General Duncan
McArthur, Captain William Wells, and
General Simon Kenton .... (Cincinnati,
1838), 12-14;
David Meade Massie, Nathaniel Massie:
A Pioneer of Ohio, A Sketch of his Life and Selections
from his Correspondence [hereafter Nathaniel Massie] (Cincinnati, 1896),
16; Nathaniel
Massie, Sr., to NM, Jr., Goochland
County Virginia, October 4, 1788, Nathaniel Massie, 118.
20. General James Wilkinson to NM,
Danville, December 15, 1786, Nathaniel Massie, 111-
13; J. Brown to Rev. T.B. Craighead,
Danville, December 22, 1786, Nathaniel Massie, 113-14;
General James Wilkinson to NM, Fayette
County, Kentucky, December 29, 1786, Nathaniel
Massie, 114; John Machir to NM, Woodstock, June 2, 1788, Nathaniel
Massie, 117-18; James
Wilkinson to NM, February 22, 1790, Nathaniel
Massie, 119. Wilkinson later intrigued with the
Spanish (1787) and was involved in the
Burr conspiracy (1805).
21. McDonald, 28-29. Some warrant
holders preferred to pay in cash. The usual fee was
£10 (Virginia currency) per 1000 acres.
158 OHIO
HISTORY
Surveyors earned these high fees by
risking Indian attacks. The
"indiscriminate" survey method
used in Virginia's bounty lands also created
problems. Under this system, the
physical features of the land (trees, rivers,
etc.) determined the metes and bounds of
a tract, and thus it was often difficult
to locate and survey land. These
instructions, from one of Massie's clients,
were typical:
if you can find whear Crews was Bureyed
at a Camp you Can Esey find the Enters,
you Must take the Marked way from the
Camp up a ridge Westardly Course, a
Bought Two Miles and the way Is Marked
. . for the two miles with a
Tommahock, and then you will turn Down a
hollow to your left hand untill you
Cross a Branch of grassey creek, and you
will see sum stumps whear there has Ben
sum fire wood Cut on the Est side of the
Branch, and Contenue the Marked way the
same Cours prohap 2-1/2 Miles Near the
head of the G-C waters and there you will
finde sum Trees Marked as the Entery's
Calls for on the West side of a Black Oake
and sum small Trees Marked Near the
S-Oake and you will return down to the same
Branch ... to the Creek ... to the fork
. . and go south Est Course a Bought four
Miles until you cum to a Creek, then up
S-Creek untill you find a Camp on S-Creek
in the Bottom whear you will see Trees
peeled & stumps and a old camp--and there
is Lewises Entery of 2000 acres."22
There were other problems with this
system. The first surveys were drawn
to include only good land (usually along
rivers), and some of the less desir-
able land was left unclaimed. Claims
overlapped and the changing nature of
the land led to legal disputes. Fraud
was also common and warrants were
sometimes forged or stolen. Some surveys
exceeded their warrant value (one
450 acre survey contained over 1600
acres!). Not surprisingly, land titles be-
came confused and Massie soon found
himself involved in legal disputes over
land.23
By 1787, Kentucky was settling fast and
speculators sought new opportuni-
ties and, in August 1787, Colonel
Anderson began to accept entries for land
north of the Ohio. Massie, hoping to get
the jump on the competition, made
his first excursion across the Ohio in
1788.24
Congress initially objected to the
opening of this region. In July 1788,
Congress passed a resolution demanding
that Virginia show there was a defi-
ciency of bounty land south of the Ohio.
One year later, Virginia reported a
shortfall of at least two million acres
and, on August 10, 1790, the first
22. John Martan to NM, Hanging Forke,
April 26, 1786, Nathaniel Massie, 109-11.
23. Hutchinson, 122-23; Thrower, 18, 35;
Louis A. Burgess, ed., Virginia Soldiers of 1776:
Compiled from Documents on File in
the Virginia Land Office ....
(Baltimore: Genealogical
Publishing, 1973), 3:1312-13; Secretary
of War W. Eustis to House, January 13, 1810, 11th
Cong., 2d sess., no. 162, American
State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the
Congress of the United States. . .[hereafter ASP] 38 vols. (Washington,
1832-61), 29:10;
Committee on Public Lands, Jeremiah
Morrow, 11th Cong., 2d sess., no. 167, March 13, 1810,
ASP 29:103. NM to Thomas Miller, Fayette, Kentucky, March
9, 1787, Nathaniel Massie, 115.
24. McDonald, 26-27.
Nathaniel Massie and Land Speculation 159 |
public land act opened the region between the Little Miami and Scioto rivers for Virginia bounty claims.25 This "Virginia Military District" contained over four million acres of land.26 The land came with a U.S. title, but was
25. "Resolution of Congress: Land Bounties," July 17, 1788, in The Territorial Papers of the United States [hereafter TP], ed. Clarence E. Carter, 27 vols. (Washington, D.C., 1934), 2: 134-35; Mr. White, House Committee Reports, July 31, 1789, 1st Congress 1st session, ASP 28, 6-7. 26. "Virginia Military Land Warrants: An Act to enable the Officers and Soldiers of the Virginia Line on Continental establishment to obtain titles to certain lands lying North West of the river Ohio, between the little Miami and Sciota," August 10, 1790, 2:297; Dictionary of American History, s.v. "Virginia Military District." The western boundary was uncertain. The Ludlow line (1802) was drawn to N 15 W. Virginia objected and in 1812 Robert's Line was drawn four miles further west. This line was accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1824. |
160 OHIO
HISTORY
surveyed according to the indiscriminate
method used in Virginia and
Kentucky. Virginia officials processed
the warrants, entries and surveys. The
federal government issued the patent to
the land.27
The District was in hostile Shawnee
territory and Massie's father disap-
proved of his dangerous excursions into
the Virginia Military District, advis-
ing his son "to drop venturing so
much."28 Massie's family admired his am-
bition, but criticized his devotion to
business. His uncle later spoke for the
entire family when he told Massie to
"lay aside future exertions, and be
Content with abundance."29 Despite
his family's objections, Massie contin-
ued to survey land north of the Ohio. In
1791, he established a permanent
base in the Virginia Military District
by granting donation lots to nineteen
families who settled at "Massie's
Station" (soon renamed Manchester). As
the first settlement in the district,
Manchester was in a precarious situation.
The region lacked military protection
and the nearest town, Columbia, was
fifty miles away. Yet, the region was
largely unsurveyed and the rewards
were great for those willing to risk
Indian attacks. Massie's boldness paid off
handsomely, and during the 1790s he
surveyed over 750,000 acres of land.
Massie was bold, but not reckless. He
surveyed during the winter months
when the Indians were inactive. He also
traveled with four assistant survey-
ors. Each surveyor had six men with him:
a hunter, two chain-bearers,
amarker, a pack horse man, and a spy.
Despite these precautions, Massie
fought with the Indians on several
occasions, but peace finally came to the
region when General Wayne defeated the
Indians at the Battle of Fallen
Timbers (August 20, 1794).30
By 1796, Massie noted that "the
business of locating is drawing to a close
very fast." In the Manchester area
there were already "20 purchasers for one
Thrower, 27. For documents relating to this
boundary dispute, see 12th Cong., 1st sess., no.
189, November 1811, ASP 29:255;
12th Cong., 2d sess., no. 210, January 18, 1813, ASP 29:735-
37.
27. Hutchinson, 106. The indiscriminate
survey has been much maligned by historians.
This method is flexible, however, and
perhaps better suited to twentieth century conditions than
the rectangular method. For a
comparative study of indiscriminate and rectangular surveying,
see Thrower.
28. Nathaniel Massie, Sr. to NM,
Goochland County, Virginia, October 4, 1788, Nathaniel
Massie, 118.
29. Joseph Watkins to NM, August 27,
1796, Nathaniel Massie, 129. See also, Henry
Massie to NM, Annhurst County, August 6,
1795, Nathaniel Massie Papers, Western Reserve
Historical Society. (Microfilm roll 1).
[hereafter Massie Papers]. His family may have been
concerned with his unmarried status.
Massie did not marry until the age of 37. Nathaniel
Massie, 106.
30. Beverley W. Bond, Jr., The
Civilization of the Old Northwest: A Study of Political,
Social, and Economic Development,
1788-1812 (New York, 1934), 28; Nathaniel
Massie, 25-
29; McDonald, 31-46, 56-58; "Fallen
Timbers, Battle of' and "Greenville, Treaty of," Concise
Dictionary of American History. Those who received donation lots agreed to live in the town
for two years. Town rules were adopted
by a majority vote. Contract, Nathaniel Massie, 47-
49. The Treaty of Greenville, 1795,
terminated all hostilities.
Nathaniel Massie and Land
Speculation
161
seller ...."31 With the Indian
threat removed, Massie began the next phase
of his land speculations-town building.
In the summer of 1796, he estab-
lished Chillicothe at the junction of
Paint Creek and the Scioto River. He of-
fered one hundred donation lots and sold
bottom land for one to two dollars
per acre. By the winter of 1796, the
town boasted stores, taverns, and craft
shops and it soon became the center of
land speculation in the Virginia
Military District. Massie established a
dozen other towns during the next
decade, but Chillicothe remained the hub
of the region.32
Massie's towns were boosted by the
migration to Ohio which followed
Wayne's victory. Settlers, mostly from
Virginia and Kentucky, sought
greater economic opportunity. Some fled
the confusion of land titles in
Kentucky.33 The ban on
slavery in Ohio attracted some, while it repelled
others. Massie's uncle believed that the
antislavery men were "the most
valuable class of citizens . . ."
traveling to the West.34 Others, however, set-
tled in Kentucky rather than Ohio
because they could not live without their
servants.35 Southerners who
settled in Ohio were motivated more by
Jeffersonian libertarianism than any
moral outrage over slavery. In fact, de
facto slavery soon took root as most "freed" slaves
came north with their
masters. Massie himself threatened to
sell one former slave unless he became
indentured.36 He also purchased
slaves for Richard C. Anderson, his former
employer.37
Massie attracted some of the most
talented and influential newcomers to
Chillicothe. He acted as a mentor to men
like Thomas Worthington, Edward
Tiffin, and Michael Baldwin. Worthington
was an antislavery Jeffersonian
who arrived in Chillicothe in 1796. He
had speculated in Pennsylvania land
and became interested in the Virginia
Military District. Massie befriended
Worthington and gained a judicial
appointment for him. Worthington soon
became the most prominent politician in
Ohio. Worthington's brother-in-
31. NM to James Herron, Manchester, July
3, 1796, Nathaniel Massie, 127, 126.
32. McDonald, 56-58, 62-64; James B.
Finley, Autobiography of Reverend James B. Finley
or Pioneer Life in the West, ed. W.P. Strickland (Cincinnati, 1853), 101-13; Nathaniel
Massie,
64. "Chillicothe" is the
Shawnee word for town. There was a large swamp west of
Chillicothe. Letters of the period
constantly refer to the "sickly" nature of the town. The town
seems to have overcome this reputation
by 1805. See Thomas Worthington to NM, Walnut
Grove, August 14, 1800, Nathaniel
Massie, 159-61; Thomas Ashe, Travels in America,
Performed in 1806, For the Purpose of
Exploring the Rivers Alleghany, Monongahela, Ohio,
and Mississippi ...., 3 vols. (London, 1808), 118-19; Josiah Espy, Memorandums
of a Tour
Made by Josiah Espy in the States of
Ohio and Kentucky and Indiana Territory in 1805
(Cincinnati, 1870), 18.
33. Finley, 99-100.
34. Joseph Watkins to NM, August 27, 1796,
Nathaniel Massie, 128.
35. Daniel Symmes to NM, Cincinnati,
February 20, 1803, Nathaniel Massie, 225-26.
36. Charles Willing Byrd to NM, May 4, Nathaniel
Massie, 170-71; Charles Willing Byrd to
NM, June 13, 1801, Nathaniel Massie, 173-74;
Cayton, 57-58.
37. Joseph Watkins to NM, Goochland
County, Virginia, April 28, 1796, Nathaniel Massie,
124; Cayton, 58.
162 OHIO
HISTORY
law, Edward Tiffin, was also a notable
addition. Tiffin was a successful doc-
tor and Methodist deacon. He freed his
slaves in 1798 and, with a letter of
recommendation from George Washington,
settled in Chillicothe. The young
lawyer Michael Baldwin was also well
connected and became one of Massie's
most promising political proteges.38
Massie profited from the eastern
connections of these men and, in turn, he
helped them with their own speculations.
By 1800, Massie owned over
75,000 acres and was one of the largest
landowners in the Virginia Military
District. He also associated with most
of the other successful speculators in
the District, including Thomas Worthington,
Richard C. Anderson, Senator
John Brown (Kentucky), John Beasley, and
his brother Henry Massie.
Duncan McArthur, who began as a chain
bearer for Massie, eventually be-
came the largest landowner in the
district, with 91,000 acres. Like Massie,
these speculators accumulated land
through the fees they earned as surveyors,
and they also added to their estates by
purchasing bounty warrants in the
east.39
Eastern investment was important, but
Massie realized that "the value of
the lands and their ready sale depends
entirely on the advancements of settle-
ments ...."40 The poor state of transportation in the
Virginia Military
District acted as one of the chief
barriers to settlement. Indian attacks threat-
ened travel on the Ohio River. Merchants
used smaller streams to carry
goods, but this was a slow and expensive
means of transportation. The road
system was also inadequate and, in fact,
the earliest land routes simply fol-
lowed Indian paths. The one main highway
was "Zane's Trace," built in
1796, a 300 mile road leading from
Wheeling through Chillicothe to
Limestone, Kentucky. This road did not
connect Chillicothe to the other ma-
jor settlements in Ohio, and it could
take three days to travel from Chillicothe
to Cincinnati, a distance of only eighty
miles.41
Massie took an early interest in
improving the transportation of the region.
In 1787, he built a road from Lexington
to the Great Kanawha River which,
he wrote, "will cause a greater
intercourse between the western and Eastern
settlements. . ."42 Later, in 1797, he received a license to
operate a ferry
38. Alfred Byron Sears, Thomas
Worthington: Father of Ohio Statehood. (Columbus, Ohio,
1958), 14-15; Cayton, 55; J. Brown to
NM, Philadelphia, [?] 19, 1799, Nathaniel Massie, 153.
Baldwin was related to Congressman
Abraham Baldwin (Georgia); Concise Dictionary of
American Biography, s.v. "Baldwin, Abraham."
39. Hutchinson, 197; Sakolski, 176.
Duncan McArthur (1772-1839) was a hunter and a
scout. Massie hired McArthur in 1793 and
made him an assistant surveyor in 1796. He later
became a congressman (1824) and governor
(1830). Massie often went east seeking business,
and in 1795 he hired Philadelphia
brokers to buy and sell warrants for him. NM to [?],
Philadelphia, December 31, 1795, Nathaniel
Massie, 122.
40. NM to John Graham, Manchester, July
13, 1798, Nathaniel Massie, 143.
41. Bond, Civilization, 351-59;
365; Utter, 200-05.
42. NM to Thomas Miller, Fayette,
Kentucky, March 9, 1787, Nathaniel Massie, 116.
Nathaniel Massie and Land
Speculation
163
at Chillicothe. Massie also used his
political influence to promote internal
improvements. As proponents of
statehood, Massie and his friends hoped for
increased federal aid for
transportation. Indeed, when Ohio became a state in
1803, Congress pledged three percent of
public land sales toward highway
construction, and one year later the
state received the funds needed to build a
road from Chillicothe to Cincinnati.43
Massie was also concerned with the
region's lack of schools. The 1790 act
which created the Virginia Military
District had not provided school lands.
Massie's early efforts to secure land
for schools were unsuccessful. In 1797,
he and Worthington petitioned Congress
for a university land grant, but their
request was denied. In 1803, Congress
authorized Ohio to use 1/36 of the un-
located land in the district for
schools, an amount that proved insufficient. By
1807, the district still lacked school
land and Worthington warned Massie that
"it will be the cause of eternal
dissatisfaction" in the region. Now a U.S.
senator, Worthington again lobbied for
land, and on March 2, 1807, Congress
finally granted additional townships for
education.44
Massie's political influence, however,
was limited while the region was
still a territory. His speculations were
caught up in territorial politics, and
Massie fought with Governor Arthur St.
Clair over a number of issues. In
1798, Massie and St. Clair clashed over
the location of the Adams County
seat. Acting Governor Winthrop Sargent
had chosen Adamsville as the site
for the county courts. St. Clair was
"astonished" when Massie removed the
courts to Manchester. The governor
argued that only he had the power to fix
county seats. He revoked Massie's
commission and refused to fund the con-
struction of public buildings in
Manchester. Massie then gathered a petition
from residents and carried the issue to
the Territorial House. The General
Assembly claimed the right to locate
county seats, but St. Clair defended his
executive prerogative and relocated the
county seat to the town of
Washington.45
43. Beverley W. Bond, Jr., Foundations
of Ohio, History of the State of Ohio, vol.1 (1941;
rpt. Columbus, Ohio, 1968), 390; Thomas
Worthington to NM, Washington, March 5, 1802,
Nathaniel Massie, 203; Bond, Civilization, 366-67; Utter, 202-07.
44. Thomas Worthington to NM,
Shepherdstown, November 24, 1797, Nathaniel Massie,
136; Treat, 267-71; Thomas Worthington
to NM, Washington, January 29, 1807, Nathaniel
Massie, 241.
45. Acting Governor Winthrop Sargent,
"Proclamation Creating Adams County," July 10,
1797, TP, 2:612-13; Governor
Arthur St. Clair to Nathaniel Massie, and other Justices of
Adams County, Cincinnati, June 29, 1798,
Arthur St. Clair, The St. Clair Papers: The Life and
Public Services of Arthur St. Clair [herafter St. Clair Papers, ed. William Henry
Smith, 2 vols.
(Cincinnati, 1882), 425n-426n. Governor
St. Clair to NM and Benjamin Goodin, Cincinnati,
July 23, 1798, St. Clair Papers, 2:428-31;
Petition to the Territorial House, September 28, 1799,
St. Clair Papers, 2:448n; Address of the Leg. Council and House of
Representatives to his
Excellency Governor St. Clair, November
1800, St. Clair Papers, 2:515-16; Bond, Foundations,
2:428-29.
164 OHIO HISTORY
St. Clair's opposition to statehood also
threatened Massie's interests. The
"Chillicothe Junto," as Massie
and his associates were known, favored imme-
diate statehood. As Republicans, they
emphasized local interests and had a
Jeffersonian faith in the ability of the
people to govern themselves. They
also hoped that Chillicothe would become
the state capitol, thus boosting
their land values.46
The Chillicothe Junto had a valuable
ally in William Henry Harrison, the
territorial delegate to Congress. In
1800, Harrison gained passage of the
Division Act, which divided the
territory so as to ensure Republican domi-
nance and early statehood. The act also
transferred the territorial capitol from
Cincinnati to Chillicothe. St. Clair,
however, continued to oppose state-
hood, and he described the settlers as
"a multitude of indigent and ignorant
people" who were "ill
qualified to form a constitution and government them-
selves."47 St. Clair
gained the support of Federalists in Cincinnati and
Marietta by proposing a new division
favorable to both cities. According to
his scheme, two new districts would be
created with capitols at Cincinnati and
Marietta.48 In December 1801,
he pushed his bill through the Federalist leg-
islature. A second bill moved the
capitol back to Cincinnati. Chillicothe
Republicans were outraged. Violence
broke out and the town's residents
burned St. Clair in effigy. Worthington
and Baldwin hurried to Washington
and persuaded the House to deny approval
of the act. In April 1802, Congress
passed an act enabling statehood. Still,
despite their success, the Chillicothe
Junto realized their interests were
threatened as long as St. Clair remained
governor, and so they immediately began
an impeachment drive.
The Junto allied with John Cleves Symmes
and others opposed to St.
Clair. With Jefferson's election as
President, the prospects of removing St.
Clair improved. In a letter to the
President, Worthington attached a list of
charges drawn up by Massie. Massie
accused St. Clair of assuming the leg-
islative power of erecting counties,
abusing his veto, trying to prevent state-
hood, creating a patronage machine, and
espousing pro-monarchical views.49
Jefferson reprimanded St. Clair, but did
not remove him.
St. Clair's downfall finally came at
Ohio's constitutional convention in
1802. The Chillicothe Junto dominated the convention, but they allowed St.
Clair to make a speech.50 "Give
him rope," Massie predicted, "and he will
hang himself."51 St.
Clair did so by denouncing the enabling act as unconsti-
46. Charles Willing Byrd to NM,
Cincinnati, August 20, 1800, Nathaniel Massie, 162-63;
Charles Willing Byrd to NM, Cincinnati,
September 24, 1800, Nathaniel Massie, 163-64.
47. Arthur St. Clair to James Ross,
December, 1799, St. Clair Papers, 2:480-84.
48. Bond, Foundations, 449-54.
49. Thomas Worthington to the President,
City of Washington, January 30, 1802, St. Clair
Papers, 2:565-70; NM to James Madison, St. Clair Papers, 2:563-65.
50. Cayton, 77. Twenty-eight of the
thirty-five convention delegates were associated with
Massie and Worthington.
51. John Smith to NM, Round Bottom Mill,
January 22, 1803, Nathaniel Massie, 222-23.
Nathaniel Massie and Land Speculation 165 |
tutional and "in truth a nullity." The Republicans forwarded St. Clair's speech to President Jefferson who swiftly revoked St. Clair's commission.52 The Chillicothe Junto achieved another important victory at the convention by temporarily locating the state capitol at Chillicothe. Chillicothe would remain the capitol until 1811 (Columbus became the permanent site in 1817).53 Massie's political influence should not be overestimated. His profits were largely determined by congressional land policy. Initially, he benefitted from the Land Act of 1796 which favored land speculators in the Virginia Military District. Settlers considered the government price for land (two dollars per acre) too high and a 640 acre minimum purchase too large. Furthermore, the
52. Secretary of State James Madison to Arthur St. Clair, Washington, November 22, 1802, Nathaniel Massie, 83. Charles Willing Byrd became acting governor. With statehood on the horizon, Massie was asked to run for governor, but he refused. See Thomas Worthington to NM, Washington, January 17, 1802, Nathaniel Massie, 180-81; Charles Willing Byrd to NM, Cincinnati, May 20, 1802, Nathaniel Massie, 205-07; NM to Thomas Worthington, Chillicothe, February 8, 1802, St. Clair Papers, 572-73. 53. Daniel J. Ryan, ed. "From Charter to Constitution ....," Publications, Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society (Columbus, 1898), 5: 145. The political influence of the Junto was also reflected in the 1803 elections. Tiffin was elected governor; Massie, president of the senate; Baldwin, speaker of the House; and Worthington was elected U.S. senator. Massie, Nathaniel Massie, 90-93. Massie was elected governor in 1807 after his opponent was disqualified on a technicality but NM refused the office. |
166 OHIO
HISTORY
government did not offer credit; and
although it surveyed townships, it did not
draw section lines, thus making it
difficult for a buyer to locate his land.54
Massie, on the other hand, surveyed any
size or shape tract. His offering
price varied according to the quality of
the land. Massie offered credit, typi-
cally requiring one-half down, with the
remainder due within twelve to twenty
four months. He also accepted non-cash
payments in the form of goods and
services.55
Still, many settlers preferred to squat
on the land rather than purchase it,
and by 1799 there were an estimated
2,000 squatters in the upper Ohio and
Scioto valleys.56 These
squatters sometimes threatened the purchases of
speculators. Thomas Worthington, for
example, purchased three choice lots
in Chillicothe, but fearing that
squatters would settle upon them while he was
away, he built a cabin on the land to
prevent them from taking it over.
Massie also experienced trouble with
unruly squatters.57
The squatters insisted that they could
not afford the price of public or pri-
vate land. In 1798 a group of them
petitioned Congress, complaining that
speculators were monopolizing land. The
squatters noted that many settlers
were accepting offers from Spanish
Louisiana, and they requested that land be
sold to bona fide settlers in parcels of
160 acres.58
A number of historians have accepted the
squatters' arguments at face value.
Speculators allegedly monopolized land,
thereby raising prices, hindering set-
tlement, and promoting farm tenancy. In
fact, the opposite was true in the
Virginia Military District. Several
factors prevented the development of land
monopolies. First, the federal
government held a huge amount of public
land. Although the initial price of
public land was high, Congress granted
increasingly liberal terms during the
early nineteenth century. Because private
land sales were usually based on credit,
speculators had to sell their land to
raise cash to pay their own debts.
Rising prices also encouraged speculators
to sell their land. Ohio's labor
shortage limited farm tenancy since most men
would not work for low wages when cheap
land was available. Speculators
had to offer generous leases in order to
attract farm labor.59
54. Treat, 85-94; "Land Act of
1800," Commager, 1:185; Joseph Watkins to NM,
Goochland County, VA, April 28, 1796, Nathaniel
Massie, 124.
55. Thomas Worthington to NM,
Sheperdstown, November 24, 1797, Nathaniel Massie, 185;
Thomas Worthington to NM, Shepherdstown,
November 29, 1797, Nathaniel Massie, 137; NM
to John Graham, Manchester, July 13,
1798, Nathaniel Massie, 142-43; NM and Arthur Dickey,
sales agreement, October 18, 1806, Massie
Papers, roll 3; NM and John Brown, settlement,
May 9, 1800, Massie Papers, roll
4.
56. Bond, Civilization, 283.
57. Sears, 18; Richard C. Anderson to
NM, Soldier's Retreat, Kentucky, March 7, 1794,
Massie Papers, 1; Elisha Whiting to NM, February 8, 1804, Massie
Papers, roll 2.
58. Petition to Congress from
Inhabitants of the Scioto, February 1, 1798, TP, 2:639-40.
59. E.g., NM to John Graham, Manchester,
April 4, 1797, Nathaniel Massie, 129-31; Bond,
Civilization, 319.
Nathaniel Massie and Land
Speculation 167
Ohio's property laws also limited the
size of estates. Several laws forced
the partition of large estates and, as a
result, absentee landownership declined
rapidly in the early nineteenth century.60
The tax laws also penalized those
who held large tracts of unimproved
land. Between 1798 and 1812 the top tax
rate on unimproved land increased from
300 to $1.25 per hundred acres.61
Massie leased out his clients' land to
pay their taxes, but the land frequently
did not produce enough cash and
therefore it was seized by the state.62 In
short, early Ohio land legislation
favored the small farmer, rather than the
speculator. There were no
"speculator's deserts" (the largest tracts in the
Virginia Military District were between
500 and 1000 acres).63
The settlers also influenced
congressional land policy. Popular pressure re-
sulted in the Land Act of 1800, which
reduced the minimum purchase to 320
acres and extended credit to bona fide
settlers. Settlers were now unwilling to
pay cash for land in the Virginia
Military District. Massie found it increas-
ingly difficult to collect the money
owed him. Pressed for cash, he was some-
times obligated to sell land below
market value. By 1811, Massie experi-
enced severe financial difficulties. In
one instance a large creditor threatened
to sue him and Massie struggled to make
payments on the debt.64
Massie diversified his operations, hoping
to increase his cash flow. He re-
mained active in land speculation, but
also took advantage of new opportuni-
ties which arose as the region
developed. In 1811 he constructed an iron fur-
nace and with the onset of the War of
1812 hoped to manufacture cannon ball.
In 1813, however, Massie suffered from
pneumonia and died.65
Massie had accumulated a great deal of
land, but his fortune did not outlive
him. He was involved in numerous
lawsuits, many of which dragged on for
years (in 1839 Massie's heirs were still
defending against a suit brought a
60. Utter, 131-32.
61. U.S., Northwest Territory, land tax,
May 1, 1798, Laws, 307-09; Bond, Civilization, 330-
38.
62. R.K. Meade to NM, April 22, 1800, Nathaniel
Massie, 157; R.K. Meade to NM, March
10, 1801, Nathaniel Massie, 157-59;
Robert Means to NM, Danville, December 15, 1803, roll 2;
W. Warfield to NM, Lexington, December
12, 1810, Massie Papers, roll 3; Bond, Civilization,
29-30.
63. Bond, Civilization, 330-38.
64. "Land Act of 1800,"
Commager, 1:185. Bond, Civilization, 29-30; Byrd Price to NM,
March 21, 1806, Massie Papers, roll
2; Jesse Hunt to NM, Cincinnati, December 13, 1809,
Nathaniel Massie, 260-61; Nathaniel Pope to NM, Highland, July 5, 1812, Massie
Papers, roll 3;
John Smith to NM, Chillicothe, December
21, 1804, Massie Papers, roll 2; NM to William
Lytle, Falls of Paint Creek, May 3,
1802, Massie Papers, roll 1; NM to David Meade, Falls of
Paint Creek, November 23, 1811, Nathaniel
Massie, 263-64; W. Warfield to NM, Lexington,
March 9, 1806, Massie Papers, roll
2; W. Warfield to NM, Lexington, December 12, 1810,
Massie Papers, roll 3; W. Warfield, receipt, Washington, KY, November
9, 1811, Massie
Papers, roll 3.
65. Daniel Connir to NM, Scioto Salt
Works, May 18, 1808, Nathaniel Massie, 252; NM to
David Meade, Falls of Paint Creek,
November 23, 1811, Nathaniel Massie, 264; James
Morrison to NM, Franklinton, January 22,
1813, Nathaniel Massie, 267; Massie, Nathaniel
Massie, 106.
168 OHIO
HISTORY
quarter century earlier).66 Massie
had used his political influence to benefit
both himself and the region. As a
Jeffersonian Republican he favored popular
rule. Frontier democracy, however,
resulted in legislation which favored the
squatter and settler over the
speculator.
Conclusions
The experiences of Massie generally
confirm the revisionist interpretation
of land speculation. A young and
ambitious Massie made a number of posi-
tive contributions to frontier
development. Massie explored and surveyed the
West, acted as a buffer against the
Indians in a region without military protec-
tion, and offered free land to the first
settlers and credit to those who followed.
He also used his political influence to
secure funding for transportation and
schools.
To a large extent, Massie's speculations
were built upon his political influ-
ence. In a few short years, he built a
political machine out of the men he at-
tracted to Ohio. Massie and his
associates profited from the privatization of
the public domain by buying up the
warrants to Virginia's bounty lands.
Still, if Massie's speculations were
based upon politics, they were also de-
stroyed by politics. Privatization
provided opportunities for speculation, but
subsequent changes in governmental
policy proved unfavorable to those who
invested heavily in land. If Massie was
a political player, he was also a polit-
ical pawn. After 1800, the federal
government undercut Massie by selling
public land at below-market value.
Ohio's property laws also favored farmers
over speculators by breaking up large
estates and imposing punitive taxes on
absentee owners.
Like many other speculators of the time,
Massie found it difficult to profit
from his ventures. In fact, one
historian has described post-Revolutionary
speculators as "the most
unsuccessful group of businessmen in American his-
tory ... ,"67 Massie became
entangled in numerous legal disputes and, as a
66. Thomas Allen to NM, December 25,
1793, Massie Papers, roll 1; Jacob Spears to NM,
Bourbon County [KY], March 11, 1795, Massie
Papers, roll 1; John Graham to NM, Salt Lick
on Little Sandy, June 6, 1799, Nathaniel
Massie, 149; John Graham to NM, Washington,
November 28, 1799, Nathaniel Massie, 149-50;
John Watts v. NM, February 1803, Kentucky
District Court, Massie Papers, roll
3; Thomas Worthington to NM, Washington, January 6,
1803, Nathaniel Massie, 221-22;
Kennedy's Executors v. Nathaniel Massie and John Obannon,
1808, Massie Papers, roll 3; Byrd
Price to NM, Lexington, KY, September 20, 1810, Massie
Papers, roll 3; Executor of John Graham's estate v. Nathaniel
Massie, Massie Papers, roll 3;
Jacob Burnet to NM, Cincinnati, July 18,
1813, Massie Papers, roll 3; John Graham estate v.
Nathaniel Massie estate, July 15, 1835, Massie
Papers, roll 3; Nathaniel Massie's heirs v. John
Graham's administrator, Massie
Papers, roll 3; 1839 bill of complaint, Israel Donalson v.
Nathaniel Massie estate, Massie
Papers, roll 3.
67. Elisha P. Douglass, The Coming of
Age of American Business: Three Centuries of
Enterprise, 1600-1900. (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1971), 69.
Nathaniel Massie and Land
Speculation 169
landlord, he found it difficult to
collect his rents. If Massie's career was typi-
cal, it should dispel the notion that
speculators could easily profit by exploit-
ing settlers. As Massie discovered,
speculations in "the great American
commodity" of land could bring both
riches and ruin in one man's lifetime.
JONATHAN J. BEAN
Marketing "the great American
commodity": Nathaniel Massie
and Land Speculation on the
Ohio Frontier, 1783-1813
Few figures in early American history
are as controversial as the land spec-
ulator. The land speculator has been
portrayed as both a parasitical landlord
and an important figure fostering the
economic development of the frontier.
The career of Ohio land speculator
Nathaniel Massie highlights the problems
faced by those engaged in land development
in the early national period.
Public policy played an important role
in determining the changing fortunes
of Massie's real estate empire. Massie
used his influence to secure internal
improvements on his land, but eventually
the combined political weight of
Ohio settlers limited the gains made by
Massie and other land speculators.
Historiography
During the first half of this century,
historians held a low opinion of land
speculation. Many scholars described it
as a disease infecting the entire popu-
lation. Large-scale speculators bought
thousands of acres, while farmers ac-
cumulated more land than they could
cultivate. All segments of society
sought "something for nothing."
Thorstein Veblen described land speculation
as one example of the absentee ownership
ideal of Americans. Americans, he
argued, were driven by a "passion
for acquisition." According to these histo-
rians, speculators served no useful
purpose. Frederick Merk referred to them
as "parasites" who engaged in
all sorts of fraud, while Paul Wallace Gates
criticized settlers who were
"distracted ... from the business of making farms
in the wilderness."1
Jonathan J. Bean received his Ph.D. in
history from The Ohio State University in 1994,
where he wrote his dissertation
"Beyond the Broker State: A History of the Federal
Government's Policies Toward Small
Business, 1936-1961."
1. Paul Wallace Gates, "The Role of
the Land Speculator in Western Development,"
Pennsylvania Magazine of History and
Biography, 66 (July, 1942), 315-16;
Malcolm J.
Rohrbaugh, The Land Office Business:
The Settlement and Administration of American Public
Lands, 1789-1837 (New York, 1968), 301; Everett Dick, The Lure of the
Land: A Social History
of the Public Lands from the Articles
of Confederation to the New Deal (Lincoln,
Nebra., 1970),