MP173 wrote: All in all, I would venture to say it was fair for both sides (rails and government).
All in all, I would venture to say it was fair for both sides (rails and government).
When railroads carried an all time high of government traffic in WWII, they enjoyed historical profitability. After the government rates were cancelled in the late 1940s, railroads declined substantially in profitability.
Why is it that "proofs" on these things always seem backwards from what actually happened even while they are offered as proof of something that didn't actually happen?
Further, from a financial point of view, a concession offered in 1862 simply cannot, by any NPV or IRR valuation, be justified by anything happening 80 years later, unless the value of that consideration 80 years later was approximately $40 billion.
And, it wasn't.
The total transportation budget for WWII, planes, trains, ocean shipping, automobiles and trucks, was only $12.8 billion.
The government did not get "a good deal" using standard investment criteria, but rather an extraordinarily negative rate of return (IRR).
MichaelSol wrote: TomDiehl wrote: MichaelSol wrote:"TomDiehl" "Murphy Siding" My understanding, from what my ancestors told me, was that my great-great whoevers, had to pay a nominal fee to enroll in the program, then "prove up" to get title of the land. I seriously doubt any of my Norweigan or Irish ancestors had 2 nickles to rub together, so I can't believe they paid very much. Wow a WHOLE $1.25 an acre. How did they ever come up with so much money? Would it make a difference if the average household income in America was $400 a year, and the average farm income less than half of that? The homesteaders paid a nominal fee for the land then had to develop the land into a farm or ranch. The railroads had to spend investor's money to develop a transportaion system to serve these lands. The point is "what's the difference?" Well, $1.25 an acre -- $200 for a farm -- compared to annual income of around $200 per year with little income in excess of necessities is a pretty big deal compared to wealthy speculators building speculative railroads where they "had to spend" investor's money -- i.e. bilk both the investors and the government. "What's the difference?" The Homesteaders were honest and paid for their land. Railroads by and large were not, and got free land.
TomDiehl wrote: MichaelSol wrote:"TomDiehl" "Murphy Siding" My understanding, from what my ancestors told me, was that my great-great whoevers, had to pay a nominal fee to enroll in the program, then "prove up" to get title of the land. I seriously doubt any of my Norweigan or Irish ancestors had 2 nickles to rub together, so I can't believe they paid very much. Wow a WHOLE $1.25 an acre. How did they ever come up with so much money? Would it make a difference if the average household income in America was $400 a year, and the average farm income less than half of that? The homesteaders paid a nominal fee for the land then had to develop the land into a farm or ranch. The railroads had to spend investor's money to develop a transportaion system to serve these lands. The point is "what's the difference?"
MichaelSol wrote:"TomDiehl" "Murphy Siding" My understanding, from what my ancestors told me, was that my great-great whoevers, had to pay a nominal fee to enroll in the program, then "prove up" to get title of the land. I seriously doubt any of my Norweigan or Irish ancestors had 2 nickles to rub together, so I can't believe they paid very much. Wow a WHOLE $1.25 an acre. How did they ever come up with so much money? Would it make a difference if the average household income in America was $400 a year, and the average farm income less than half of that?
"TomDiehl" "Murphy Siding" My understanding, from what my ancestors told me, was that my great-great whoevers, had to pay a nominal fee to enroll in the program, then "prove up" to get title of the land. I seriously doubt any of my Norweigan or Irish ancestors had 2 nickles to rub together, so I can't believe they paid very much. Wow a WHOLE $1.25 an acre. How did they ever come up with so much money?
"Murphy Siding" My understanding, from what my ancestors told me, was that my great-great whoevers, had to pay a nominal fee to enroll in the program, then "prove up" to get title of the land. I seriously doubt any of my Norweigan or Irish ancestors had 2 nickles to rub together, so I can't believe they paid very much.
Wow a WHOLE $1.25 an acre. How did they ever come up with so much money?
The homesteaders paid a nominal fee for the land then had to develop the land into a farm or ranch. The railroads had to spend investor's money to develop a transportaion system to serve these lands.
The point is "what's the difference?"
Well, $1.25 an acre -- $200 for a farm -- compared to annual income of around $200 per year with little income in excess of necessities is a pretty big deal compared to wealthy speculators building speculative railroads where they "had to spend" investor's money -- i.e. bilk both the investors and the government.
"What's the difference?"
The Homesteaders were honest and paid for their land.
Railroads by and large were not, and got free land.
The railroads only "got free land" if they developed a transportation system on it. Ever heard of a "common carrier" and heard of the obligations of such a classification? They needed to invest in immediate improvements which required buying materials and hiring labor to do these improvements. Since the government got a transportation system built, and the investors got a return on the investment with a successful railroad, exactly who was and how were they "bilked?"
MichaelSol wrote: TomDiehl wrote: 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. How on earth do you know what the land was worth without a railroad? The U.S. Government had settled on $1.25 per acre in 1800. Long before railroads existed. Are you now arguing that only railroads made land worth anything? Further, most railroads were private binding the East, Midwest, and South. They didn't need land grants, and they exploited lands that had already been long before sold by the government -- the government didn't need railroads to charge $1.25 an acre.
TomDiehl wrote: 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.
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.
How on earth do you know what the land was worth without a railroad?
The U.S. Government had settled on $1.25 per acre in 1800. Long before railroads existed.
Are you now arguing that only railroads made land worth anything?
Further, most railroads were private binding the East, Midwest, and South. They didn't need land grants, and they exploited lands that had already been long before sold by the government -- the government didn't need railroads to charge $1.25 an acre.
How much is your farm crop worth if you can't get it to market before it spoils? Or have to pay to ship it in horse drawn freight wagons? Before the railroads were built or promised to be built, how much of this land sold at even $1.25 an acre? The "worth" of the land would be determined on how much of it you can sell at that point in time. You could declare it to be worth $1000 an acre, but if nobody buys any of it, is it really worth that much money? The same can be said if you declared the value to be 50 cents an acre.
The railroads built in the settled part of the country were built to serve already existing markets, they could offer a better service than the freight wagons or stagecoaches. The areas were settled around navigable waterways and primitive road systems, the transportation system available at the time of the area's settling. A simple principle of business, provide a better transport service, in this case, faster and in many cases cheaper, and you will profit.
In the mid 1800's, west of the Mississippi and east of the settled west coast, there were very few existing markets. Left to private investment, railroads would have moved in and served this area over a period of decades, eventually connecting the two developed areas. After the separation caused by the Civil War, the federal government put a high priority on a fast transportation system to connect the settled east and west coasts. They got what they wanted.
MichaelSol wrote: MP173 wrote: All in all, I would venture to say it was fair for both sides (rails and government). When railroads carried an all time high of government traffic in WWII, they enjoyed historical profitability. After the government rates were cancelled in the late 1940s, railroads declined substantially in profitability. Why is it that "proofs" on these things always seem backwards from what actually happened even while they are offered as proof of something that didn't actually happen?
Because you're trying to show a cause and effect by connect two remotely related facts. Government shipping at regular or special rates was not a substantial portion of the railroad's business. Government shipping during WW 2 was at a peak because of the war effort. Rationing of rubber and gas forced a lot of civilian passengers to the rails during the same time. Railroad profitability declined because they were trying to find their new niche in the market with the developing highway and personal vehicle being thrown into the equation.
MichaelSol wrote: MP173 wrote: All in all, I would venture to say it was fair for both sides (rails and government). When railroads carried an all time high of government traffic in WWII, they enjoyed historical profitability. After the government rates were cancelled in the late 1940s, railroads declined substantially in profitability. Why is it that "proofs" on these things always seem backwards from what actually happened even while they are offered as proof of something that didn't actually happen? Further, from a financial point of view, a concession offered in 1862 simply cannot, by any NPV or IRR valuation, be justified by anything happening 80 years later, unless the value of that consideration 80 years later was approximately $40 billion. And, it wasn't. The total transportation budget for WWII, planes, trains, automobiles and trucks, was only $12.8 billion. The government did not get "a good deal" using standard investment criteria, but rather an extraordinarily negative rate of return (IRR).
The total transportation budget for WWII, planes, trains, automobiles and trucks, was only $12.8 billion.
If you look at the government's financial involvement in railroad development in terms of "standard investment criteria," you'd be right, the rate of return was poor at best.
However, the government, in the mid 1800's, wasn't looking for a place to invest public money as a means of financial return. They needed a transportation system built to serve an unsettled part of the country. From that point of view, they got a rather substantial return on the investment.
TomDiehl: Government shipping at regular or special rates was not a substantial portion of the railroad's business. Bob Wilcox: The so called land grant rates lasted untill the late 1940s. In WW II the federal government was not a small potato rather they were the railroads largest customer. Well, facts are just being thrown around here. I think Bob is correct and TomDiehl is making up whatever justifies his argument de jure. Tom wants to argue government policy now, which is a long, long ways from discussing whether or not the Homesteaders enjoyed the same financial benefits as the railroads did through receiving vast land grants. When in doubt, change the subject I guess. The point is, historically, it is an insupportable proposition to declare that Homesteaders got "vast land grants." It never happened. Railroads did, on the other hand, receive vast land grants, valued at the time far in excess of the valuation of the proposed construction. Homesteaders received nothing in excess of anything -- TomDiehl doesn't think their land was even worth what they paid for it. Nor did the Homesteaders receive vast government loans to build an ostensibly private business. Further, when Homesteaders went bust and couldn't last out the prove-up, the land went back to the government, for another round of fees and sales. Five years was a long time to "prove-up" on the Great Plains, formerly called the "Great American Desert" until the government and the railroads decided that wasn't a very attractive name. The Government sold and resold a lot of land. When the railroads defaulted on their obligations of survey and proving, no such event occured. See the earlier cite to Bagely. And Union Pacific and Northern Pacific could not be seen returning any government land in their 1893 bankruptcies. TomDiehl: 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. Earlier, TomDiehl felt it was apparently a bargain. TomDiehl: Wow a WHOLE $1.25 an acre. How did they ever come up with so much money? The bulk of U.S. government land ever offered for sale was sold at $1.25 an acre, and most of this occured before railroads existed as an economic force. Apparently the land was worth it. The first Homestead Act was enacted years before the UP was completed and over two decades prior to the completion of the Northern Pacific. The Homesteaders in "Giants in the Earth" were out in the Dakotas ahead of any railroad construction. Montana's first railroad, the Utah & Northern, was built specifically because of existing commerce in Montana measured by riverboat traffic on the Missouri River, which that railroad thought justified construction. [Rex C. Myers, Montana: A State and It's Relationship with Railroads, 1864-1970, Master's Thesis, University of Montana, 1972, p. 231]. There is simply no doubt that Government policy drove transcontinental railroad construction. Ironically, no one has disputed that. What the historical record does not support is the earlier contention on this thread that Homesteaders got "vast land grants."
Government shipping at regular or special rates was not a substantial portion of the railroad's business.
Bob Wilcox: The so called land grant rates lasted untill the late 1940s. In WW II the federal government was not a small potato rather they were the railroads largest customer.
The so called land grant rates lasted untill the late 1940s. In WW II the federal government was not a small potato rather they were the railroads largest customer.
Well, facts are just being thrown around here. I think Bob is correct and TomDiehl is making up whatever justifies his argument de jure.
Tom wants to argue government policy now, which is a long, long ways from discussing whether or not the Homesteaders enjoyed the same financial benefits as the railroads did through receiving vast land grants.
When in doubt, change the subject I guess.
The point is, historically, it is an insupportable proposition to declare that Homesteaders got "vast land grants." It never happened.
Railroads did, on the other hand, receive vast land grants, valued at the time far in excess of the valuation of the proposed construction. Homesteaders received nothing in excess of anything -- TomDiehl doesn't think their land was even worth what they paid for it.
Nor did the Homesteaders receive vast government loans to build an ostensibly private business.
Further, when Homesteaders went bust and couldn't last out the prove-up, the land went back to the government, for another round of fees and sales. Five years was a long time to "prove-up" on the Great Plains, formerly called the "Great American Desert" until the government and the railroads decided that wasn't a very attractive name. The Government sold and resold a lot of land.
When the railroads defaulted on their obligations of survey and proving, no such event occured. See the earlier cite to Bagely. And Union Pacific and Northern Pacific could not be seen returning any government land in their 1893 bankruptcies.
TomDiehl: 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.
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.
Earlier, TomDiehl felt it was apparently a bargain.
TomDiehl: Wow a WHOLE $1.25 an acre. How did they ever come up with so much money?
The bulk of U.S. government land ever offered for sale was sold at $1.25 an acre, and most of this occured before railroads existed as an economic force.
Apparently the land was worth it.
The first Homestead Act was enacted years before the UP was completed and over two decades prior to the completion of the Northern Pacific.
The Homesteaders in "Giants in the Earth" were out in the Dakotas ahead of any railroad construction.
Montana's first railroad, the Utah & Northern, was built specifically because of existing commerce in Montana measured by riverboat traffic on the Missouri River, which that railroad thought justified construction. [Rex C. Myers, Montana: A State and It's Relationship with Railroads, 1864-1970, Master's Thesis, University of Montana, 1972, p. 231].
There is simply no doubt that Government policy drove transcontinental railroad construction. Ironically, no one has disputed that. What the historical record does not support is the earlier contention on this thread that Homesteaders got "vast land grants."
TomDiehl wrote: Since the government got a transportation system built, and the investors got a return on the investment with a successful railroad, exactly who was and how were they "bilked?"
Is this for real?
You never heard of the Montana Improvement Company scandal (NP) or the Credit Mobilier (UP)?
By that, I mean that I am entirely convinced that you haven't, but why are you commenting on a subject where you transparently have no background? This is pretty basic history here, and you seem to be completely unaware of any of it, notwithstanding an apparently irresistable desire to prove it publicly.
You are also not aware that both of the land grant transcontinentals went broke in 1893. The "investors" lost everything.
Your measures of "success" and mine are different.
MichaelSol wrote: TomDiehl: Government shipping at regular or special rates was not a substantial portion of the railroad's business. Bob Wilcox: The so called land grant rates lasted untill the late 1940s. In WW II the federal government was not a small potato rather they were the railroads largest customer. Well, facts are just being thrown around here. I think Bob is correct and TomDiehl is making up whatever justifies his argument de jure. Tom wants to argue government policy now, which is a long, long ways from discussing whether or not the Homesteaders enjoyed the same financial benefits as the railroads did through receiving vast land grants. When in doubt, change the subject I guess.
TomDiehl: Government shipping at regular or special rates was not a substantial portion of the railroad's business. Bob Wilcox: The so called land grant rates lasted untill the late 1940s. In WW II the federal government was not a small potato rather they were the railroads largest customer. Well, facts are just being thrown around here. I think Bob is correct and TomDiehl is making up whatever justifies his argument de jure. Tom wants to argue government policy now, which is a long, long ways from discussing whether or not the Homesteaders enjoyed the same financial benefits as the railroads did through receiving vast land grants. When in doubt, change the subject I guess.
I see Michael is back to his selective editing again. Let's look at the WHOLE statement I made earlier:
"Because you're trying to show a cause and effect by connect two remotely related facts. Government shipping at regular or special rates was not a substantial portion of the railroad's business. Government shipping during WW 2 was at a peak because of the war effort. Rationing of rubber and gas forced a lot of civilian passengers to the rails during the same time. Railroad profitability declined because they were trying to find their new niche in the market with the developing highway and personal vehicle being thrown into the equation."
Essentially the same thing Bob Wilcox stated, before Michael edited it to attempt to prove who-knows-what.
Since my quote was stated in answer to Michael's lame attempt to connect two remotely related facts to prove a point (dropping of government rates caused railroads profitability to go down), I was not the one trying to change the subject. It's you trying to alter a statement to prove someone else is wrong. Once you alter someone else's statement in that way, it becomes your statement, making you the one that is wrong.
And you the one trying to change the subject.
tiskilwa wrote:MichaelSol wrote: "...TomDiehl is making up whatever justifies his argument de jure."Dear Sir,You have committed a malapropism."De jure" means "by law", and should not be confused with "du jour", as in "soup du jour", which means "of the day."
Absolutely correct. My spell checker changed my text as it had one and not the other, and I did not pay attention.
MichaelSol wrote: The point is, historically, it is an insupportable proposition to declare that Homesteaders got "vast land grants." It never happened. Railroads did, on the other hand, receive vast land grants, valued at the time far in excess of the valuation of the proposed construction. Homesteaders received nothing in excess of anything -- TomDiehl doesn't think their land was even worth what they paid for it. Nor did the Homesteaders receive vast government loans to build an ostensibly private business. Further, when Homesteaders went bust and couldn't last out the prove-up, the land went back to the government, for another round of fees and sales. Five years was a long time to "prove-up" on the Great Plains, formerly called the "Great American Desert" until the government and the railroads decided that wasn't a very attractive name. The Government sold and resold a lot of land. When the railroads defaulted on their obligations of survey and proving, no such event occured. See the earlier cite to Bagely. And Union Pacific and Northern Pacific could not be seen returning any government land in their 1893 bankruptcies.
Looking at individual homesteaders, no they did not receive a huge land grant. Added together, the homesteaders received quite a bit of land. Small farms and ranches allowed families to start out with a chance to build a business. Each one could financially stand alone in the success or failure of the operation. One going bankrupt for reasons other than weather would not necessarily make his neighbor go bankrupt.
One other observation I notice Michael has yet to comment or refute is that the railroads were built as common carriers. Just a bit more private than a public utility. They were not able to stand alone, financially or operationally, from neighboring railroads. They were part of a transportation system. A system which added value to the land they served.
And before they built the railroad (or the same could be said for any transport system) how much of the land was sold, even at the $1.25 an acre? And how much was sold after the rails were serving the area? Declaring a price for land is meaningless unless someone is willing to pay that price for it, a point I made earlier.
And obviously it wasn't impossible for people to make thie homesteads "prove up."
When railroads went bankrupt, of course different rules would be applied to how the bankruptcy is executed compared to a homestead. You're comparing a common carrier to a private farm or ranch.
TomDiehl wrote: futuremodal wrote: futuremodal wrote: How many farmers received land grants? Murphy Siding wrote: How many? Literally thousands of farmers did. Around here, they called it homesteading. What did they call it there? JOdom wrote: Wasn't massive, but one of my ancestors did. In 1851. In south Georgia. I imagine most of his neighbors did, too. Limitedclear wrote: 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. 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! 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. 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?
futuremodal wrote: futuremodal wrote: How many farmers received land grants? Murphy Siding wrote: How many? Literally thousands of farmers did. Around here, they called it homesteading. What did they call it there? JOdom wrote: Wasn't massive, but one of my ancestors did. In 1851. In south Georgia. I imagine most of his neighbors did, too. Limitedclear wrote: 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. 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! 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.
futuremodal wrote: How many farmers received land grants?
Murphy Siding wrote: How many? Literally thousands of farmers did. Around here, they called it homesteading. What did they call it there?
How many? Literally thousands of farmers did. Around here, they called it homesteading. What did they call it there?
JOdom wrote: Wasn't massive, but one of my ancestors did. In 1851. In south Georgia. I imagine most of his neighbors did, too.
Wasn't massive, but one of my ancestors did. In 1851. In south Georgia. I imagine most of his neighbors did, too.
Limitedclear wrote: 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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
......and then there's the little wrigglers that aren't worth reeling in. Ya just yank 'em off the hook and throw 'em back.
TomDiehl wrote: Since my quote was stated in answer to Michael's lame attempt to connect two remotely related facts to prove a point (dropping of government rates caused railroads profitability to go down), I was not the one trying to change the subject. It's you trying to alter a statement to prove someone else is wrong. Once you alter someone else's statement in that way, it becomes your statement, making you the one that is wrong. And you the one trying to change the subject.
Simply bizarre.
Does anyone actually know what the government paid to ship a tank? Is there a record anywhere that the government got a "deal"? Is it a reasonable proposition that railroads set rates for goods likely to be shipped by the government very high? And that the government "rate" was about the same as everyone else as a result?
I don't know. Neither does TomDiehl.
The comments were made to point out the typical non sequiturs in your posturing.
Your proposition: government got a good deal on rates.
What would be a tangible proof or prima facie proof of that contention?
If, at a point in time when the government was the largest shipper on U.S. Railways, that profitability declined. A supporting proof would be that, at a point when railroads offered no such rates to the government, profitability improved, particularly when Korean wartime government rail shipments skyrocketed again.
The available record shows exactly the opposite occured.
Accordingly, you do not have a prima facie case for your proposition. but there is a prima facie case that something is wrong with your proposition.
In that instance, the burden of proof that something else affects the outcome is on you. And there may very well be an alternative case, but the prima facie case is the one supported by the available evidence.
But that is the non-sequitur in the way you argue: you rebut a documented fact -- a prima facie case -- with an unsupported conclusion derived as best as I can tell from the typical lack of factual accuracy or foundation from a tangled and jumbled collection of unsupported opinions on a wide variety of topics that you carry around and feel compelled to offer to the public.
And always accuse the other guy of being "lame," whereas you have not yet resorted on this thread to your standard accusation that anyone who disagrees with you is "weak minded" or "feeble minded."
MichaelSol wrote: [quote}TomDiehl: 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. Earlier, TomDiehl felt it was apparently a bargain. TomDiehl: Wow a WHOLE $1.25 an acre. How did they ever come up with so much money? The bulk of U.S. government land ever offered for sale was sold at $1.25 an acre, and most of this occured before railroads existed as an economic force. Apparently the land was worth it. The first Homestead Act was enacted years before the UP was completed and over two decades prior to the completion of the Northern Pacific. The Homesteaders in "Giants in the Earth" were out in the Dakotas ahead of any railroad construction. Montana's first railroad, the Utah & Northern, was built specifically because of existing commerce in Montana measured by riverboat traffic on the Missouri River, which that railroad thought justified construction. [Rex C. Myers, Montana: A State and It's Relationship with Railroads, 1864-1970, Master's Thesis, University of Montana, 1972, p. 231]. There is simply no doubt that Government policy drove transcontinental railroad construction. Ironically, no one has disputed that. What the historical record does not support is the earlier contention on this thread that Homesteaders got "vast land grants."
[quote}TomDiehl:
I did note what part of my quote you put in bold, I would have put the bold over the other part, but that would disprove your statement.
"And most of this occured before the railroads existed as an economic force." But how much of it occured before the railroads served the area? It took more than a few years for them to become an "economic force."
But then I note that there's no mention of what percentage of the land was developed according to "Giants of the Earth" before the railroads arrived. Or the Homestead Act.
And your statement about the Utah & Northern is essentially what I said about existing commerce in the east. It developed along waterways and railroads were built to serve it better than the existing transport system.
Cheap land and granting land is how the government helped develop the west. No one seems to be disputing that.
MichaelSol wrote: TomDiehl wrote: Since the government got a transportation system built, and the investors got a return on the investment with a successful railroad, exactly who was and how were they "bilked?" Is this for real? You never heard of the Montana Improvement Company scandal (NP) or the Credit Mobilier (UP)? By that, I mean that I am entirely convinced that you haven't, but why are you commenting on a subject where you transparently have no background? This is pretty basic history here, and you seem to be completely unaware of any of it, notwithstanding an apparently irresistable desire to prove it publicly. You are also not aware that both of the land grant transcontinentals went broke in 1893. The "investors" lost everything. Your measures of "success" and mine are different.
Pretty lame attempt Michael. You can easily find abuses in any branch of business. Take the more recent Tyco and Enron scandals. They hardly convict an entire industry like you're trying to do here. And I am quite aware of history.
Since the "investors lost everything" it's probably a good thing that the government didn't "invest" in the building of these railroads to benefit finanancially directly from the investment.
"Success" is also determined from exactly what you're trying to accomplish, not necessarily in a financial sense. Since the railroads helped develop the wilderness and connected the developed east and west coasts together, as the government "investors" wanted, yes, they were a success. Obviously our measures are different.
futuremodal wrote: TomDiehl wrote: futuremodal wrote: futuremodal wrote: How many farmers received land grants? Murphy Siding wrote: How many? Literally thousands of farmers did. Around here, they called it homesteading. What did they call it there? JOdom wrote: Wasn't massive, but one of my ancestors did. In 1851. In south Georgia. I imagine most of his neighbors did, too. Limitedclear wrote: 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. 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! 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. 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? ......and then there's the little wrigglers that aren't worth reeling in. Ya just yank 'em off the hook and throw 'em back.
Dave has no escape from his foot-in-mouth statements, so this is his reply.
Dave has nothing to say, and says it quite well.
TomDiehl wrote: Cheap land and granting land is how the government helped develop the west. No one seems to be disputing that.
Government land policy charged the same price for land for virtually all of the 19th century, whether it was in New Hampshire, Ohio, Georgia, or Utah. It wasn't cheap for the people that had to buy it.
After the Railroads got free land, and cash loans, the interest on their bonds was guaranteed as well. No Homesteader got interest guaranteed on his mortgage. http://cprr.org/Museum/Reports/pictures/capture_00216.html
Railroads got land grants.
Homesteaders did not get land grants.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
MichaelSol wrote: TomDiehl wrote: Since my quote was stated in answer to Michael's lame attempt to connect two remotely related facts to prove a point (dropping of government rates caused railroads profitability to go down), I was not the one trying to change the subject. It's you trying to alter a statement to prove someone else is wrong. Once you alter someone else's statement in that way, it becomes your statement, making you the one that is wrong. And you the one trying to change the subject. Simply bizarre. Does anyone actually know what the government paid to ship a tank? Is there a record anywhere that the government got a "deal"? Is it a reasonable proposition that railroads set rates for goods likely to be shipped by the government very high? And that the government "rate" was about the same as everyone else as a result? I don't know. Neither does TomDiehl. The comments were made to point out the typical non sequiturs in your posturing. Your proposition: government got a good deal on rates. What would be a tangible proof or prima facie proof of that contention? If, at a point in time when the government was the largest shipper on U.S. Railways, that profitability declined. A supporting proof would be that, at a point when railroads offered no such rates to the government, profitability improved, particularly when Korean wartime government rail shipments skyrocketed again. The available record shows exactly the opposite occured. Accordingly, you do not have a prima facie case for your proposition. but there is a prima facie case that something is wrong with your proposition. In that instance, the burden of proof that something else affects the outcome is on you. And there may very well be an alternative case, but the prima facie case is the one supported by the available evidence. But that is the non-sequitur in the way you argue: you rebut a documented fact -- a prima facie case -- with an unsupported conclusion derived as best as I can tell from the typical lack of factual accuracy or foundation from a tangled and jumbled collection of unsupported opinions on a wide variety of topics that you carry around and feel compelled to offer to the public. And always accuse the other guy of being "lame," whereas you have not yet resorted on this thread to your standard accusation that anyone who disagrees with you is "weak minded" or "feeble minded."
And another example of selective editing and attempting to change the subject. I never made any statement about the government's special rates they got because of the land grants. And I never mentioned anything about shipping tanks or other military equipment. More of Michael's babbling. I never claimed to "know" anything about these rates. Now who's doing the misquoting? And these original quotes are in the thread for all to see. Even the part of my statement you quoted above says that it was YOUR attempt to link two remotely related items.
So rather than answer what he tried to change by his earlier selective editing, he tries more editing and spinning. Much more of the spin and we'll have to hand out the Dramamine.
That's why I called your attempts "lame." The misquoting and the editing are so obvious.
MichaelSol wrote: TomDiehl wrote: Cheap land and granting land is how the government helped develop the west. No one seems to be disputing that. Government land policy charged the same price for land for virtually all of the 19th century, whether it was in New Hampshire, Ohio, Georgia, or Utah. It wasn't cheap for the people that had to buy it. After the Railroads got free land, and cash loans, the interest on their bonds was guaranteed as well. No Homesteader got interest guaranteed on his mortgage. http://cprr.org/Museum/Reports/pictures/capture_00216.html Railroads got land grants. Homesteaders did not get land grants. Quod erat demonstrandum.
More misquoting.
I never said Homesteaders got land grants.
So what exactly is it you're trying to prove, Michael?
TomDiehl: Government shipping at regular or special rates was not a substantial portion of the railroad's business. Government shipping during WW 2 was at a peak because of the war effort. Rationing of rubber and gas forced a lot of civilian passengers to the rails during the same time. Railroad profitability declined because ...
Government shipping at regular or special rates was not a substantial portion of the railroad's business. Government shipping during WW 2 was at a peak because of the war effort. Rationing of rubber and gas forced a lot of civilian passengers to the rails during the same time. Railroad profitability declined because ...
TomDiehl: And another example of selective editing and attempting to change the subject. I never made any statement about the government's special rates .... And I never mentioned anything about shipping tanks or other military equipment. More of Michael's babbling. I never claimed to "know" anything about these rates. Now who's doing the misquoting?
And another example of selective editing and attempting to change the subject. I never made any statement about the government's special rates .... And I never mentioned anything about shipping tanks or other military equipment. More of Michael's babbling. I never claimed to "know" anything about these rates. Now who's doing the misquoting?
Bizarre.
Futuremodal: How many farmers received massive land grants?
How many farmers received massive land grants?
TomDiehl: To mention one, the Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889.
To mention one, the Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889.
TomDiehl: More misquoting. I never said Homesteaders got land grants.
For someone so quick to accuse others of misquoting, your record of misquoting yourself is simply astonishing.
These conversations are positively surreal.
MichaelSol wrote: TomDiehl: Government shipping at regular or special rates was not a substantial portion of the railroad's business. Government shipping during WW 2 was at a peak because of the war effort. Rationing of rubber and gas forced a lot of civilian passengers to the rails during the same time. Railroad profitability declined because ... TomDiehl: And another example of selective editing and attempting to change the subject. I never made any statement about the government's special rates .... And I never mentioned anything about shipping tanks or other military equipment. More of Michael's babbling. I never claimed to "know" anything about these rates. Now who's doing the misquoting? Bizarre.
Again with the selective editing. Insanity has jokingly been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Once again, the full quote:
I did notice however, that you didn't quote YOUR statement that preceeded my answer quoted above. I'll quote it below, from page 4 first entry:
"When railroads carried an all time high of government traffic in WWII, they enjoyed historical profitability. After the government rates were cancelled in the late 1940s, railroads declined substantially in profitability.
Why is it that "proofs" on these things always seem backwards from what actually happened even while they are offered as proof of something that didn't actually happen?" (end of Michael's statement)
You're trying to spin and misquote my reply to your contention that "After the government rates were cancelled in the late 1940s, railroads declined substantially in profitability."
You tried to state that government rates being cancelled in the late 1940's caused the railroads substantial decline in profitability. I pointed out the fact you ignored many other more major factors, stated in my COMPLETE quote above.
No matter how you try to spin or edit it, your attempt is still pretty lame.
MichaelSol wrote: Futuremodal: How many farmers received massive land grants? TomDiehl: To mention one, the Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889. TomDiehl: More misquoting. I never said Homesteaders got land grants. For someone so quick to accuse others of misquoting, your record of misquoting yourself is simply astonishing. These conversations are positively surreal.
And yes, removing parts of a statement to change its meaning is a form of misquoting. I notice you "conviently" left out the link I provided. I wonder why that was?
And there is no record of me misquoting myself or anyone else. I quote other people's ENTIRE statements, not selected portions designed to change the meaning like some other people.
Your discussion of government rates and WWII, followed by your denial that you had ever discussed any such thing, followed now by your admission that you did in fact discuss government rates and WWII does not, in any way, enhance humanity's knowledge about any of it since your conclusions apparently change at the drop of a hat or whenever any inconvenient fact appears on the horizon. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, apparently there are a lot of hats dropping today in your house.
MichaelSol wrote: Your discussion of government rates and WWII, followed by your denial that you had ever discussed any such thing, followed now by your admission that you did in fact discuss government rates and WWII does not, in any way, enhance humanity's knowledge about any of it since your conclusions apparently change at the drop of a hat or whenever any inconvenient fact appears on the horizon. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, apparently there are a lot of hats dropping today in your house.
I see your reading ability hasn't improved. As quoted in the third post on page 5, my statement was NOT a discussion on government rates, special or otherwise, during any point in history. It was YOUR statement that the rates ended in the late 1940's that even came close to any discussion on this topic. Let's see if I can change the subject BACK to the original. And I will show you the respect of quoting the ENTIRE statement:
And I will requote MY statement:
"You tried to state that government rates being cancelled in the late 1940's caused the railroads substantial decline in profitability. I pointed out the fact you ignored many other more major factors, stated in my COMPLETE quote above."
Since I see you have no answer to this, the hats in my house are quite safe.
TomDiehl: "You tried to state that government rates being cancelled in the late 1940's caused the railroads substantial decline in profitability. I pointed out the fact you ignored many other more major factors, stated in my COMPLETE quote above."
MichaelSol: "When railroads carried an all time high of government traffic in WWII, they enjoyed historical profitability. After the government rates were cancelled in the late 1940s, railroads declined substantially in profitability.
You've got it backwards. Proof that government rates were an economic burden is not supported by the available statistical record because, in fact, during the time of the highest use by the government of railroads, profits were the highest. High profits are not proof that government rates were a burden.
Conversely, declining profits after the "special" government rates were abolished lends no support to the idea that the rates were really special.
In neither case does the statistical record prove that government railroad rates were of any special advantage to the government, or burden to the railroads. The Korean war experience offers a corollary.
The "quotes" show the absence of a prima facie case that government rates were advantageous to the government. That is a far cry from the misrepresentation you make that I somehow alleged that the government rates "caused" -- a word I did not in fact use -- high profits, or upon their demise, "caused" low profits.
I would say your hats need the intervention of Protective Services.
MichaelSol wrote: What would be a tangible proof or prima facie proof of that contention? If, at a point in time when the government was the largest shipper on U.S. Railways, that profitability declined. A supporting proof would be that, at a point when railroads offered no such rates to the government, profitability improved, particularly when Korean wartime government rail shipments skyrocketed again. The available record shows exactly the opposite occured.
I'd have to question this idea a little. While I know, that you've said before, that just because I've read things in several different books, doesn't neccesarily lead you to accept them as correct. Fair enough-everyone has their opinions. I've read many times that the land grant railroads paid back their *debts to society*(?) many times over, by shipping Government material at a *reduced* rate. I've read that rate was, in times of war, up to 50% lower than everyone else paid. I don't know the number, nor have I ever really seen it written down. I do believe it to be true, however, based on the following: During the war years (WWII), freight rates were controlled by the ICC, as they had been for a long time before that. With all the economic and price control that the Government gave itself during the war,it's quite plausible to believe that Uncle Sam set the rate he was going to pay for material shipment during the war.
Your cause & effect theory about government freight rates and railroad profits is somewhat random, in my opinion. One could just as easily point out that after the war, profits from passenger trains went down. Most passenger diners served carrots. Using your cause & effect theory, there's your proof that carrots caused passenger train profits to go down.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding wrote: MichaelSol wrote: What would be a tangible proof or prima facie proof of that contention? If, at a point in time when the government was the largest shipper on U.S. Railways, that profitability declined. A supporting proof would be that, at a point when railroads offered no such rates to the government, profitability improved, particularly when Korean wartime government rail shipments skyrocketed again. The available record shows exactly the opposite occured. I'd have to question this idea a little. While I know, that you've said before, that just because I've read things in several different books, doesn't neccesarily lead you to accept them as correct. Fair enough-everyone has their opinions. I've read many times that the land grant railroads paid back their *debts to society*(?) many times over, by shipping Government material at a *reduced* rate. I've read that rate was, in times of war, up to 50% lower than everyone else paid. I don't know the number, nor have I ever really seen it written down. I do believe it to be true, however, based on the following: During the war years (WWII), freight rates were controlled by the ICC, as they had been for a long time before that. With all the economic and price control that the Government gave itself during the war,it's quite plausible to believe that Uncle Sam set the rate he was going to pay for material shipment during the war. Your cause & effect theory about government freight rates and railroad profits is somewhat random, in my opinion. One could just as easily point out that after the war, profits from passenger trains went down. Most passenger diners served carrots. Using your cause & effect theory, there's your proof that carrots caused passenger train profits to go down.
By Murphy Siding's last paragraph above, it appears that I'm not the only one to interpret your statement that way.
Seems my hats don't need any protective service.
MichaelSol wrote: I would say your hats need the intervention of Protective Services.
I'm not even sure what that means. We did inventory at our lumberyard today. It was unseasonably cold this morning, and the only hat I could find belonged to one of my kids. I looked like Elmer Fudd. Maybe my hat needed the intervention?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.