Jerseyman,
As always I do enjoy your feedback! I provide suggestions to stimulate discourse and conjure possible connections worthy of consideration. Heston (1924: 271) states, "Michael G. Landis, the father of Charles K. Landis, was a merchant in Lancaster,Pennsylvania, and afterwards a railroad contractor in Pennsylvania and Georgia, and Charles K. Landis, therefore, during his early life, moved about with his parents and studied under private tutors in Philadelphia, Macon and Atlanta, Georgia, and Lancaster Pennsylvania." While Heston is not always the most accurate source, I have little reason to doubt this account.
My suggestion is that Michael Landis would have been privy to the inside dish on railroad plans, and both father and son used this insider status to speculate in land. Heston (1924: 271) continued, Landis' "journeyings about the country had made him aware of the vast potentialities of his native land. Much, even on the Eastern seaboard, was wilderness, but Landis [my speculation – through insider trading] could see what the wilderness might become and how development might be aided [at substantial profit to Landis]."
If Landis had profited through access to insider information, then this would not have been widely broadcasted, so, yes, I do have to speculate even if it seems ad nauseum. So sorry! Bear with me. We now know Landis had early on speculated in other railroad lands in and out of State, even Vineland before 1861, some being ethnic settlements. In my Margaret Mead study notes for the Pinelands Commission, there is a reference to a certain deed, cited as Book P, Page 568, dated March 1, 1860. It is between Samuel B. Coughlin of Philadelphia, and Michael G. Landis of Hammonton, for a sum of $15,000.00, tracts of land in Burlington and Atlantic Counties which make up the Atsion Estate. Is this relevant?
S-M