Train Trivia 10/16/05 (ANSWERED)

Anonymous

Member since
April 2003
305,205 posts

Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, October 16, 2005 6:14 PM

In 1884 the Democrat party produced a falsified map showing how much the railroads had been given by the Republican congress. The map however included all possible land grants even alternate routes and multiplied it by 4. It showed 80% of what state was owned by the railroads?

1. Iowa
2. Indiana
3. Illinois
4. Idaho

Reply
Edit

railfan619

Member since
March 2004
From: Somewhere near the tracks
927 posts

Posted by railfan619 on Sunday, October 16, 2005 6:21 PM

UH I THINK IT WAS

#1 IOWA

Reply

Anonymous

Member since
April 2003
305,205 posts

Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, October 16, 2005 6:29 PM

Saddly this map was used in textbooks until 1940. I wonder if Dan Rather's great grandfather was behind this

Reply
Edit

tmcc man

Member since
April 2005
From: North of Philadelphia
2,372 posts

Posted by tmcc man on Sunday, October 16, 2005 6:40 PM

i'm gonna say ILL, maybe even Indiana

Colin

from prr.railfan.net

Reply

Murphy Siding

Member since
May 2005
From: S.E. South Dakota
13,567 posts

Posted by Murphy Siding on Sunday, October 16, 2005 6:47 PM

# 1

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

Reply

rrnut282

Member since
January 2001
From: MP CF161.6 NS's New Castle District in NE Indiana
2,146 posts

Posted by rrnut282 on Sunday, October 16, 2005 7:45 PM

I'm going with Iowa. Indiana bacame a state in 1862, Illinois a year or two on either side. Iowa would still be sparsly populated enough that land was available to grant and it was on many transcon routes which helps rule out Idaho.

Mike (2-8-2)

Reply

rrnut282

Member since
January 2001
From: MP CF161.6 NS's New Castle District in NE Indiana
2,146 posts

Posted by rrnut282 on Sunday, October 16, 2005 7:47 PM

Interesting that the Democratic Party hasn't changed tactics in all these years. Might have something to do with being stubborn as a jack***. [(-D]

Mike (2-8-2)

Reply

miniwyo

Member since
January 2003
From: Rock Springs Wy.
1,967 posts

Posted by miniwyo on Sunday, October 16, 2005 7:55 PM

Iowa

RJ

"Something hidden, Go and find it. Go and look behind the ranges, Something lost behind the ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go." The Explorers - Rudyard Kipling

http://sweetwater-photography.com/

Reply

blhanel

Member since
January 2002
From: Cedar Rapids, IA
4,212 posts

Posted by blhanel on Sunday, October 16, 2005 9:02 PM

Who am I to disagree with my illustrious colleagues above? I guess I'll pick my current state of residence as well: Iowa.

Brian (IA) http://blhanel.rrpicturearchives.net.

Reply

Modelcar

Member since
February 2002
From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
13,456 posts

Posted by Modelcar on Sunday, October 16, 2005 9:48 PM

...My answer is Iowa....I'll refrain from entering the political part of it...

Quentin

Reply

Anonymous

Member since
April 2003
305,205 posts

Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, October 16, 2005 11:51 PM

I'll guess Iowa because historically, it developed later than the other two Midwestern "I" states. Idaho has a lot of railroad trackage but even more mountains, so I doubt that development could cover eighty percent of anything -- even twenty percent would be a stretch.

I'll enjoy seeing the answer to this!

Reply
Edit

CSSHEGEWISCH

Member since
March 2016
From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
13,487 posts

Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, October 17, 2005 7:45 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrnut282

I'm going with Iowa. Indiana bacame a state in 1862, Illinois a year or two on either side. Iowa would still be sparsly populated enough that land was available to grant and it was on many transcon routes which helps rule out Idaho.

I'll agree with Iowa, although Indiana became a state in 1816 and Illinois was admitted to the Union in 1818.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul

Reply

Anonymous

Member since
April 2003
305,205 posts

Posted by Anonymous on Monday, October 17, 2005 9:51 AM

I would say Iowa.... I recall a quote from a magazine article from a long time ago (I think it was TRAINS, but I will not swear to it) that at it's peak of prosperity, there was no place in Iowa that was further than 12 miles from a railroad line.

Reply
Edit

Murphy Siding

Member since
May 2005
From: S.E. South Dakota
13,567 posts

Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, October 17, 2005 12:30 PM

Illinois would be a good pick too. I believe the first land grants were for the IC. Some unknown lawyer helped them out with that one.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

Reply

Anonymous

Member since
April 2003
305,205 posts

Posted by Anonymous on Monday, October 17, 2005 12:34 PM

Wouldn't be a tall guy would he? Or honest?

Reply
Edit

CShaveRR

Member since
June 2001
From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
13,681 posts

Posted by CShaveRR on Monday, October 17, 2005 12:39 PM

Keep in mind that, regardless of what the map showed, 80 percent of the land couldn't have been owned by the railroads. It would possibly be true to state that 80 percent of the land was land-grant territory, but the land grants were for every other section (square mile) in a checkerboard pattern.

The maps of land-grant lines I've seen don't show anything close to 80 percent coverage, but Iowa looks to be the winner, at any rate. Indiana had no land-grant railroads.

Carl

Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)

CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)