Final answer:
The statement regarding land per slave versus per child is hard to categorize as True or False without context; land and slave ownership were closely linked in history. The colonizationist scheme was not popular among black abolitionists, which is false. Acquisition of land was a primary motivator in U.S. Indian policy, which is true.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question "True or False: Owners received more land per slave than per child." refers to historical policies related to land distribution and slavery. During certain periods in history, landowners indeed based their wealth on the number of slaves they owned. Land acquisition was tightly linked with the institution of slavery, as the value derived from land heavily depended on enslaved labor.
However, the question's phrasing might relate to particular historical contexts like the Antebellum South or colonial policies, and without specifying the time frame or legal system in question, it's hard to provide a definitive True or False answer. In some legal frameworks and times, children would inherit land, but slaves were often seen as more immediate economic assets.
Regarding the colonizationist scheme
The statement "The colonizationist scheme of the early 1800s proved to be popular among black abolitionists" is false. Many black abolitionists, in fact, opposed colonization, as they saw it as a plan that would simply reinforce segregation and racism, merely relocating the problem rather than addressing the issue of slavery and inequality within the United States.
Indian Land Policy
As for the statement "Acquisition of land was the most important motivating factor in the formulation of early U.S. Indian policy," this is typically considered true. Land was a significant driving force behind these policies, as evidenced by various treaties and forced relocations aimed at opening up territory for European-American settlers.