The Redskins; or, Indian and Injin, Volume 1. Read online

  Produced by Bryan Ness, Susan Carr and the OnlineDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (Thisbook was produced from scanned images of public domainmaterial from the Google Print project.)

  THE

  REDSKINS;

  OR,

  INDIAN AND INJIN:

  BEING THE CONCLUSION OF THE

  LITTLEPAGE MANUSCRIPTS.

  BY THE

  AUTHOR OF "THE PATHFINDER," "DEERSLAYER,""TWO ADMIRALS," ETC.

  In every work regard the writer's end; None e'er ran compass more than they intend. POPE.

  IN TWO VOLUMES.

  VOL. I.

  NEW YORK:

  PUBLISHED BY BURGESS & STRINGER,

  1846.

  Entered, according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1846, by

  J. FENIMORE COOPER,

  in the clerk's office of the District Court for the Northern Districtof New York.

  STEREOTYPED BY J. FAGAN, PHILADELPHIA.

  PREFACE.

  This book closes the series of the Littlepage Manuscripts, which havebeen given to the world, as containing a fair account of the comparativesacrifices of time, money and labour, made respectively by the landlordand the tenants, on a New York estate; together with the manner in whichusages and opinions are changing among us; as well as certain of thereasons of these changes. The discriminating reader will probably beable to trace in these narratives the progress of those innovations onthe great laws of morals which are becoming so very manifest inconnection with this interest, setting at naught the plainest principlesthat God has transmitted to man for the government of his conduct, andall under the extraordinary pretence of favouring liberty! In thisdownward course, our picture embraces some of the proofs of thatlooseness of views on the subject of certain species of property whichis, in a degree perhaps, inseparable from the semi-barbarous conditionof a new settlement; the gradation of the squatter, from him who merelymakes his pitch to crop a few fields in passing, to him who carries onthe business by wholesale; and last, though not least in this catalogueof marauders, the anti-renter.

  It would be idle to deny that the great principle which lies at thebottom of anti-rentism, if principle it can be called, is theassumption of a claim that the interests and wishes of numbers are to berespected, though done at a sacrifice of the clearest rights of the few.That this is not liberty, but tyranny in its worst form, everyright-thinking and right-feeling man must be fully aware. Every one whoknows much of the history of the past, and of the influence of classes,must understand, that whenever the educated, the affluent and thepractised, choose to unite their means of combination and money tocontrol the political destiny of a country, they become irresistible;making the most subservient tools of those very masses who vainlyimagine _they_ are the true guardians of their own liberties. Thewell-known election of 1840 is a memorable instance of the power of sucha combination; though that was a combination formed mostly for the merepurposes of faction, sustained perhaps by the desperate designs of theinsolvents of the country. Such a combination was necessarily wanting inunion among the affluent; it had not the high support of principles togive it sanctity, and it affords little more than the proof of the powerof money and leisure, when applied in a very doubtful cause, in wieldingthe masses of a great nation, to be the instruments of their ownsubjection. No well-intentioned American legislator, consequently, oughtever to lose sight of the fact, that each invasion of the right which hesanctions is a blow struck against liberty itself, which, in a countrylike this, has no auxiliary so certain or so powerful as justice.

  The State of New York contains about 43,000 square miles of land; orsomething like 27,000,000 of acres. In 1783, its population must havebeen about 200,000 souls. With such a proportion between people andsurface it is unnecessary to prove that the husbandman was not quite asdependent on the landholder, as the landholder was dependent on thehusbandman. This would have been true, had the State been an island; butwe all know it was surrounded by many other communities similarlysituated, and that nothing else was so abundant as land. All notions ofexactions and monopolies, therefore, must be untrue, as applied to thosetwo interests at that day.

  In 1786-7, the State of New York, then in possession of all powers onthe subject, abolished entails, and otherwise brought its law of realestate in harmony with the institutions. At that time, hundreds, perhapsthousands, of the leases which have since become so obnoxious, were inexistence. With the attention of the State drawn directly to the mainsubject, no one saw anything incompatible with the institutions in them._It was felt that the landlords had bought the tenants to occupy theirlands by the liberality of their concessions_, and that the latter werethe obliged parties. Had the landlords of that day endeavoured to leasefor one year, or for ten years, no tenants could have been found forwild lands; but it became a different thing, when the owner of the soilagreed to part with it for ever, in consideration of a very low rent,granting six or eight years free from any charge whatever, andconsenting to receive the product of the soil itself in lieu of money.Then, indeed, men were not only willing to come into the terms, buteager; the best evidence of which is the fact, that the same tenantsmight have bought land, out and out, in every direction around them,had they not preferred the easier terms of the leases. Now, that thesesame men, or their successors, have become rich enough to care more tobe rid of the encumbrance of the rent than to keep their money, therights of the parties certainly are not altered.

  In 1789, the Constitution of the United States went into operation; NewYork being a party to its creation and conditions. By that Constitution,the State deliberately deprived itself of the power to touch thecovenants of these leases, without conceding the power to any othergovernment; unless it might be through a change of the Constitutionitself. As a necessary consequence, these leases, in a legal sense,belong to the institutions of New York, instead of being opposed tothem. Not only is the spirit of the institutions in harmony with theseleases, but so is the letter also. Men must draw a distinction betweenthe "spirit of the institutions" and their own "spirits;" the latterbeing often nothing more than a stomach that is not easily satisfied. Itwould be just as true to affirm that domestic slavery is opposed to theinstitutions of the United States, as to say the same of these leases.It would be just as rational to maintain, because A. does not choose tomake an associate of B., that he is acting in opposition to the "spiritof the institutions," inasmuch as the Declaration of Independenceadvances the dogmas that men are born equal, as it is to say it isopposed to the same spirit, for B. to pay rent to A. according to hiscovenant.

  It is pretended that the durable leases are feudal in their nature. Wedo not conceive this to be true; but, admitting it to be so, it wouldonly prove that feudality, to this extent, is a part of the institutionsof the State. What is more, it would become a part over which the Stateitself has conceded all power of control, beyond that which it mayremotely possess as one, out of twenty-eight communities. As respectsthis feudal feature, it is not easy to say where it must be looked for.It is not to be found in the simple fact of paying rent, for that is sogeneral as to render the whole country feudal, could it be true; itcannot be in the circumstance that the rent is to be paid "in kind," asit is called, and in labour, for that is an advantage to the tenant, byaffording him the option, since the penalty of a failure leaves thealternative of paying in money. It must be, therefore, that these leasesare feudal because they run for ever! Now the length of the lease isclearly a concession to the tenant, and was so regarded when received;and there is not probably a single tenant, under lives, who would notgladly exchange his term of possession for that of one of thesedetestable dura
ble leases!

  Among the absurdities that have been circulated on this subject offeudality, it has been pretended that the well-known English statute of"_quia emptores_" has prohibited fines for alienation; or that thequarter-sales, fifth-sales, sixth-sales, &c. of our own leases werecontrary to the law of the realm, when made. Under the common law, incertain cases of feudal tenures, the fines for alienation were anincident of the tenure. The statute of _quia emptores_ abolished thatgeneral principle, but it in no manner forbade parties _to enter intocovenants of the nature of quarter-sales_, did they see fit. The commonlaw gives all the real estate to the eldest son. Our statute divides thereal estate among the nearest of kin, without regard even to sex. Itmight just as well be pretended that the father cannot devise all hislands to his eldest son, under our statute, as to say that the law ofEdward I. prevents parties from _bargaining_ for quarter-sales. Alteringa provision of the common law does not preclude parties from makingcovenants similar to its ancient provisions.

  Feudal tenures were originally divided into two great classes; thosewhich were called the military tenures, or knight's service, and_soccage_. The first tenure was that which became oppressive in theprogress of society. Soccage was of two kinds; free and villian. Thefirst has an affinity to our own system, as connected with these leases;the last never existed among us at all. When the knight's service, ormilitary tenures of England were converted into free soccage, in thereign of Charles II., the concession was considered of a character sofavourable to liberty as to be classed among the great measures of thetime; one of which was the _habeas corpus_ act!

  The only feature of our own leases, in the least approaching "villiansoccage," is that of the "day's works." But every one acquainted withthe habits of American life, will understand that husbandmen, ingeneral, throughout the northern States, would regard it as an advantageto be able to pay their debts in this way; and the law gives them anoption, since a failure to pay "in kind," or "in work," merely incursthe forfeiture of paying what the particular thing is worth, in money.In point of fact, money has always been received for these "day'sworks," and at a stipulated price.

  But, it is pretended, whatever may be the equity of these leaseholdcontracts, they are offensive to the tenants, and ought to be abrogated,for the peace of the State. The State is bound to make all classes ofmen respect its laws, and in nothing more so than in the fulfilment oftheir legal contracts. The greater the number of the offenders, thehigher the obligation to act with decision and efficiency. To say thatthese disorganizers _ought_ not to be put down, is to say that crime isto obtain impunity by its own extent; and to say that they _cannot_ beput down "under our form of government," is a direct admission that thegovernment is unequal to the discharge of one of the plainest andcommonest obligations of all civilized society. If this be really so,the sooner we get rid of the present form of government the better. Thenotion of remedying _such_ an evil by concession, is as puerile as it isdishonest. The larger the concessions become, the greater will be theexactions of a cormorant cupidity. As soon as quiet is obtained by thesemeans, in reference to the leasehold tenures, it will be demanded bysome fresh combination to attain some other end.

  When Lee told Washington, at Monmouth, "Sir, your troops will not standagainst British grenadiers," Washington is said to have answered, "Sir,you have never tried them." The same reply might be given to thosemiserable traducers of this republic, who, in order to obtain votes,affect to think there is not sufficient energy in its government to putdown so bare-faced an attempt as this of the anti-renters to alter theconditions of their own leases to suit their own convenience. The countyof Delaware has, of itself, nobly given the lie to the assertion, thehonest portion of its inhabitants scattering the knaves to the fourwinds, the moment there was a fair occasion made for them to act. Asingle, energetic proclamation from Albany, calling a "spade a spade,"and not affecting to gloss over the disguised robbery of theseanti-renters, and laying just principles fairly before the public mind,would of itself have crushed the evil in its germ. The people of NewYork, in their general capacity, are not the knaves their servantsevidently suppose.

  The assembly of New York, in its memorable session of 1846, has taxedthe rents on long leases; thus, not only taxing the same property twice,but imposing the worst sort of income-tax, or one aimed at a fewindividuals. It has "thimble-rigged" in its legislation, as Mr. HughLittlepage not unaptly terms it; endeavouring to do that indirectly,which the Constitution will not permit it to do directly. In otherwords, as it can pass no direct law "impairing the obligation ofcontracts," while it _can_ regulate descents, it has enacted, so far asone body of the legislature has power to enact anything, that on the_death_ of a landlord the tenant may convert his lease into a mortgage,on discharging which he shall hold his land in fee!

  We deem the first of these measures far more tyrannical than the attemptof Great Britain to tax her colonies, which brought about therevolution. It is of the same general character, that of unjusttaxation; while it is attended by circumstances of aggravation thatwere altogether wanting in the policy of the mother country. This is nota tax for revenue, which is not needed; but a tax to "choke off" thelandlords, to use a common American phrase. It is clearly taxing_nothing_, or it is taxing the same property twice. It is done toconciliate three or four thousand voters, who are now in the market, atthe expense of three or four hundred who, it is known, are not to bebought. It is unjust in its motives, its means and its end. The measureis discreditable to civilization, and an outrage on liberty.

  But, the other law mentioned is an atrocity so grave, as to alarm everyman of common principle in the State, were it not so feeble in itsdevices to cheat the Constitution, as to excite contempt. Thisextraordinary power is exercised because the legislature _can_ controlthe law of descents, though it cannot "impair the obligation ofcontracts!" Had the law said at once that on the death of a landlordeach of his tenants should _own_ his farm in fee, the ensemble of thefraud would have been preserved, since the "law of descents" would havebeen so far regulated as to substitute one heir for another; butchanging the _nature_ of a contract, with a party who has nothing to dowith the succession at all, is not so very clearly altering, oramending, the law of descents! It is scarcely necessary to say thatevery reputable court in the country, whether State or Federal, wouldbrand such a law with the disgrace it merits.

  But the worst feature of this law, or attempted law, remains to benoticed. It would have been a premium on murder. Murder _has_ alreadybeen committed by these anti-renters, and that obviously to effecttheir ends; and they were to be told that whenever you shoot a landlord,as some have already often shot _at_ them, you can convert yourleasehold tenures into tenures in fee! The mode of valuation is soobvious, too, as to deserve a remark. A master was to settle thevaluation on testimony. The witnesses of course would be "theneighbours," and a whole patent could swear for each other!

  As democrats we protest most solemnly against such bare-faced frauds,such palpable cupidity and covetousness being termed anything but whatthey are. If they come of any party at all, it is the party of thedevil. Democracy is a lofty and noble sentiment. It does not rob thepoor to make the rich richer, nor the rich to favour the poor. It isjust, and treats all men alike. It does not "impair the obligations ofcontracts." It is not the friend of a canting legislation, but, meaningright, dare act directly. There is no greater delusion than to supposethat true democracy has anything in common with injustice or roguery.

  Nor is it an apology for anti-rentism, in any of its aspects, to saythat leasehold tenures are inexpedient. The most expedient thing inexistence is to do right. Were there no other objection to thisanti-rent movement than its corrupting influence, that alone should setevery wise man in the community firmly against it. We have seen too muchof this earth, to be so easily convinced that there is any disadvantage,nay that there is not a positive advantage in the existence of largeleasehold estates, when they carry with them no political power, as isthe fact here. The common-place ar
gument against them, that they defeatthe civilization of a country, is not sustained by fact. The mostcivilized countries on earth are under this system; and this system,too, not entirely free from grave objections which do not exist amongourselves. That a poorer class of citizens have originally leased thanhave purchased lands in New York, is probably true; and it is equallyprobable that the effects of this poverty, and even of the tenure in theinfancy of a country, are to be traced on the estates. But this istaking a very one-sided view of the matter. The men who became tenantsin moderate but comfortable circumstances, would have been mostlylabourers on the farms of others, but for these leasehold tenures. Thatis the benefit of the system in a new country, and the ultra friend ofhumanity, who decries the condition of a tenant, should remember that ifhe had not been in this very condition, he might have been in a worse.It is, indeed, one of the proofs of the insincerity of those who aredecrying leases, on account of their aristocratic tendencies, that theirdestruction will necessarily condemn a numerous class of agriculturists,either to fall back into the ranks of the peasant or day-labourer, or tomigrate, as is the case with so many of the same class in New England.In point of fact, the relation of landlord and tenant is one entirelynatural and salutary, in a wealthy community, and one that is so much inaccordance with the necessities of men, that no legislation can longprevent it. A state of things which will not encourage the rich to holdreal estate would not be desirable, since it would be diverting theirmoney, knowledge, liberality, feelings and leisure, from theimprovement of the soil, to objects neither so useful nor sopraiseworthy.

  The notion that every husbandman is to be a freeholder, is as Utopian inpractice, as it would be to expect that all men were to be on the samelevel in fortune, condition, education and habits. As such a state ofthings as the last never yet did exist, it was probably never designedby divine wisdom that it should exist. The whole structure of societymust be changed, even in this country, ere it could exist amongourselves, and the change would not have been made a month before theutter impracticability of such a social fusion would make itself felt byall.

  We have elsewhere imputed much of the anti-rent feeling to provincialeducation and habits. This term has given the deepest offence to thosewho were most obnoxious to the charge. Nevertheless, our opinion isunchanged. We know that the distance between the cataract of Niagara andthe Massachusetts line is a large hundred leagues, and that it is asgreat between Sandy Hook and the 45th parallel of latitude. Manyexcellent things, moral and physical, are to be found within theselimits, beyond a question; but we happen to know by an experience thathas extended to other quarters of the world, for a term now exceedingforty years, that more are to be found beyond them. If "honourablegentlemen" at Albany fancy the reverse, they must still permit us tobelieve they are too much under the influence of provincial notions.

  THE REDSKINS.