Which issue did the land ordinance of 1785 address?
slavery in the thirteen states
settling public lands in the west
trade among states
preserving revolutionary war battlefields

The Land Ordinance of 1785 addressed the issue of settling public lands in the West.

In 1785, a few years after independence, the 13 colonies of the United States were organized because of the Articles of Confederation. This text did not mention unoccupied lands in the west of the US territory and how to manage them. It was the role of the Land Ordinance of 1785, which set up a system of sharing that was applied throughout the country for almost 100 years.

Before the western lands officially became states, the ordinance made them public, which means they belonged to the US Congress. Any colonist or speculator who wanted to settle there and build buildings on it had to buy them and follow a precise policy. The vacant lands were divided into townships, and each township was divided into sections. Each section had to fulfill a specific mission. For example, Section 16 of each canton was dedicated to public education, so new settlers were forced to build schools there.

This strict mathematical division has enabled the United States to become a rich and perfectly organized country. Because of this order, all the American states work well without too much inequality.

Subject: History

Chapter: The Articles of Confederation

Keywords: a history of the United States, the policy during the Articles of Confederation, organization of the US territory, territorial evolution of the United States

Settling public lands in the west was the issue that land ordinance of 1785 addressed.  

Further Explanation:

The land ordinance bill was of 1875 was adopted by United States congress on May 20 1785. Under this, a standardized system was set up by the government under which the whereby settlers could purchase land for farmland in the western part of the country which was underdeveloped. During that period of time, Congress was not having the power to impose direct tax to get revenue so sale of these lands in the west generated revenue for them. Almost three forth area of the Continental United States was covered under this bill. Earlier under the ordinance of 1784, the land of west which had Appalachian Mountains, Ohio River in the north and Mississippi river in the east was to be divided in 10 separate states. But, there was no such mechanism in that ordinance which told that by which these lands will become states and how will it be divided or how these territories will be governed before they became a state. The ordinance of 1785 provided all the answers related to this which was there in ordinance of 1784. The answers to the political needs were addressed in northwest ordinance which came in year 1787. his issue which this bill had to look into was the settling of public lands in the west.

Learn more:

1. How did Theodore Roosevelt’s square deal help the environment?

2. Which of the following was Hitler’s first violation of the treaty of Versailles?

3. During the cold war, how were the policy of containment and the domino theory related?

Answer Details:

Grade – High School

Subject – Economy

Chapter – Economy Regulation

Grade – High School

Subject – History

Chapter – Land Ordinance of 1785

Keywords – Land Ordinance, Northwest Ordinance, Ordinance of 1784, West, Land, Ohio River, Mississippi River, United States, Farmland, Mississippi.  

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is

roosevelt, a progressive reformer, earned a reputation as a "trust buster" through his regulatory reforms and anti-trust prosecutions. his "square deal" included regulation of railroad rates and pure foods and drugs; he saw it as a fair deal for both the average citizen and the businessmen.