Legacy in Early American
One of the main reasons that one could argue this case happened was the idea of property in 1800’s or early America was a significant prospect. It was a way to show wealth along with leave a form of legacy or in this case money for the people left behind. Perhaps one argument of this case could be the generational differences of property and the slow shift that had developed. Looking at some of the letters sent by the state of Kentucky in this case Mason IV had bought much of the land discussed along with William Mason his son, yet it appeared to be for different reasons. William bought the land with the stipulation it be sold for a value, now this can be interpreted to distribute the wealth equally because the more you break down land the less value it holds. It kind of goes with the questions of how you put a value on an enslaved person, you sell them to divide the profits, which as cruel as that sounds, is the way the system worked in this time. Now looking back at the Kentucky land, Mason IV had bought it, yet he still chooses to divide it, even dividing his other Virginia Property as well. Perhaps showing a want to increase his property and the legacy left behind, more than just his famous Gunston Hall, this tying in with the thoughts of historians.
Other historians also empathize the fact that many of the founding fathers found property to be very beneficial, to the point it was “perhaps the most important value of the Founding Fathers of the American constitutional period[1].” The founders made the idea of private property and property rights a central part of federal and then oftentimes state laws. Making the idea of property something that many courts protected, perhaps alluding to why this case had the outcome it did. Now although most of the argument was surrounding the idea of money, there was some property involved and the money was the outcome of said property, making it even more essential for it to be passed down.
Many founders defended the idea of property because it was of important economic growth along with the idea of induvial liberty. The idea being if no one could own land, then the market would be at a standstill with not business.[2] Perhaps not the same idea as personal property, which is a core idea of induvial liberty, being to able to own your own land or property gave you freedom from the government.[3] It also gives one a sense of personal freedom and not being dependent on anyone. Something perhaps the younger two siblings really drew from, since the eldest sons normally got the most out of the will, they wanted anything they were entitled too.
Down to the core of this case is the idea paternalism, wealth comes in the form of land and is passed to the children. When the children do not get their said share, it is in their right to fight for what was passed to them. What makes this even more unique still is this idea of “and their heirs forever” as it was the children of Ann Mason who was fighting for their mother’s last share. Showing the importance of those words and the idea of passing legacy and value at death.
[1] “Property Rights in American History.” n.d. Hillsdale College (blog). Accessed April 29, 2021. https://www.hillsdale.edu/educational-outreach/free-market-forum/2008-archive/property-rights-in-american-history/.
[2] Property Rights in American History.” n.d. Hillsdale College (blog).
[3] Property Rights in American History.” n.d. Hillsdale College (blog).