Advertisement

Conclusion

  • David Ress
Chapter

Abstract

The rights any person has to occupy and use land are fundamental to securing a place to live and work—a physical, concrete fact—as well as more intangible status of a place in a community’s political, economic and social life. The history of the Half Breed Tracts shows that the people of the American frontier, the politicians who represented them and the political economists who aimed to explain the production and distribution of goods in a society initially had no simple, single answer to the land question. The consensus that seemed to emerge, that individual ownership with an absolute right to deny access to others and to use however the owner wished would remain an uncomfortable one for those Americans who felt an emotional connection to the places where they lived.

Keywords

Severalty Commons Fee simple Land tenure Landowning 

References

  1. Act of February 5, 1813, 2 Stat. 797.Google Scholar
  2. Act of April 12, 1814, 3 Stat. 121.Google Scholar
  3. Act of May 29, 1830, 4 Stat. 420.Google Scholar
  4. Act of January 23, 1832, 4 Stat. 496.Google Scholar
  5. Act of April 5, 1832, 4 Stat. 503.Google Scholar
  6. Act of July 14, 1832, 4 Stat. 603.Google Scholar
  7. Act of March 2, 1833, 4 Stat. 663.Google Scholar
  8. Act of June 19, 1834, 4 Stat. 678).Google Scholar
  9. Act of September 4, 1841, 5 Stat. 453.Google Scholar
  10. Barton’s Lessee v. Shall, 7 Tenn. 214 (Supreme Court of Tennessee, 1823).Google Scholar
  11. Bowles v. Sharp 7 Ky. 550; (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 1817).Google Scholar
  12. Broughton v. Singleton, 2 Nott & McCord’s R. 338 at 340 (South Carolina Constitutional Court, 1820).Google Scholar
  13. Carson v. Blazer 2 Binn. 475 (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1810).Google Scholar
  14. Cheney v. Ringgold, 2 H. & J., 87, 91 (Maryland Supreme Court, 1807).Google Scholar
  15. James Childress against Francis McGehee; 1 Minor 131 (Alabama Supreme Court, 1823).Google Scholar
  16. Commonwealth v. Powell, 8 Leigh, 719 (Virginia Supreme Court, 1837).Google Scholar
  17. Conger v. Weaver, 6 Cal. 548 (California Supreme Court, 1856).Google Scholar
  18. Constitution of Vermont of 1777. Laws of Vermont to 1807 (Randolph, Vt.: 1808), Vol. 1, pp. 204–8.Google Scholar
  19. Fail and Nabb v. Goodtitle, 1 Ill. 201 (Supreme Court of Illinois, 1826).Google Scholar
  20. Henderson’s Case 8 Gratt. 708 (Virginia Supreme Court, 1851).Google Scholar
  21. Hening’s Statutes at Large, Vol. 9 (Richmond, 1821).Google Scholar
  22. Lessee of Bonnet v. Devebaugh and Smith, 3 Binn. 175 (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1810).Google Scholar
  23. M’Conico v. Singleton, 2 Mills S.C. Const. R 244 (South Carolina Constitutional Court, 1818).Google Scholar
  24. Poindexter v. Henderson 1 Miss. 176 (Supreme Court of Mississippi, 1824).Google Scholar
  25. Seeley v. Peters, 5 Gilman 142 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1848).Google Scholar
  26. Black Hawk, Autobiography of Ma-ka-tai-me-she-kia-kiak, or Black Hawk, embracing the traditions of his nation, various wars in which he has been engaged, and his account of the cause and general history of the Black Hawk war of 1832, his surrender, and travels through the United States (Oquakwa, Ill.: J.b. Patterson, 1882).Google Scholar
  27. Lund, Thomas, American Wildlife Law (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Ress
    • 1
  1. 1.Newport NewsUSA

Personalised recommendations