Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="TomDiehl"][quote user="futuremodal"] [quote user="futuremodal"]              How many farmers received  land grants?   [/quote] [quote user="Murphy Siding"]     How many?  Literally thousands of farmers did.  Around here, they called it homesteading.  What did they call it there? [/quote] [quote user="JOdom"] Wasn't massive, but one of my ancestors did.  In 1851.  In south Georgia.  I imagine most of his neighbors did, too. [/quote] [quote user="Limitedclear"] Seems to me that many settlers of our western states did indeed receive massive land grants from the Federal and in some cases (California) state land grants to settle and cultivate vast lands. [/quote] Ya know, it's so elementary - you just bait the hook, cast your line, and wait patiently. First time I've ever caught three at once, though![swg] Homestead lands and railroad land grants were two different things.  With homesteading, the farmer had to make his living off that land, a measley 160 acres, and if he failed (as many did), the land went up for auction by the revenuers. The land was the farmer's sole source of income for the most part.  No one in their right mind would call it a "land grant" because it wasn't. With the railroad land grants, the land itself was mainly used to provide collateral for construction bonds  The rest was kept as future collateral, basically banked right up until just recently by most of the railroad companies.  The land itself was not meant to provide a sole source of revenue for the railroads, rather incentive for construction of the lines themselves.  Little if any of the railroad land grants were ever reaquired by the feds via seizure and auction. Hmmmmm, 160 acres is some kind of moral equivalent to the millions of acres of railroad land grants per company? Nice try, rookies. [/quote] And to you Dave, I'll say "lame try." The government wasn't in a financial position to build the railroads at that point in time. If they had, maybe you'd see how well your "open access" fantasy would work with the rail lines in as bad a shape as the interstate highway system. The companies had to build the transportation system into a wilderness. Otherwise, those farmers and ranchers would be hauling thier products to market in covered wagons. The land wouldn't even be worth the $1.25 an acre until the government could afford to build some type of system for transport. If the land granted to the railroads wasn't supposed to be a source of income for the railroads, exactly what was the incentive the railroads received from the grants besides what was needed for right of way? And what is your source for the statement "basically banked right up until just recently by most of the railroad companies." How much? How recent? And are you also trying to tell us that EVERY railroad that received land grants was a financial success? [/quote] ......and then there's the little wrigglers that aren't worth reeling in.  Ya just yank 'em off the hook and throw 'em back.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag