Don't Blame the RRs

[TomDiehl]

And as I said before, I am quite aware of history ...

You have provided no evidence of it to date.

The same could be said for you.

[MichaelSol]

This has become a typical TomDiehl thread.

 

 

Funny, while reading this thread for the 1st time today, I was thinking to myself, "Great, another Michael Sol know it all with FM acting as his lap dog thread."

Bert 

Bert -

You are dead on...

I feel bad for Tom as I have walked a mile in his shoes.

Funny how a guy like Sol who claims to be a railroader, newspaper editor, lawyer and judge can end up looking so foolish when his claims are exposed to the light of day, as to FM, well he is just full of it and merits zero consideration...

LC

Don't forget Michael claims to also have "managed a farm for 40 years" whatever that means.

And don't forget that TomDiehl claims that he gives guided tours as part of his claim to expertise ...

[MichaelSol]

And as I said before, I am quite aware of history ...

You have provided no evidence of it to date.

The same could be said for you.

OOOOh.

You wouldn't have a basis to judge that, would you?

What courses did you take in history? Where did you develop your expertise? Who did you study with?

I haven't seen a single reference to a scholarly work or source from you.

I haven't seen a single accurate factual statement from you. Including statements about your own statements.

[TomDiehl]

This has become a typical TomDiehl thread.

Which means Bergie will soon lock it up.  Tom has discovered a way to get rid of threads of whose content he is uncomfortable - just keep on obfuscating until no one knows or cares what the original topic was, and pretty soon the moderator locks it up as a sort of "mercy killing".  You all notice how Tom purposefully responds to a single post with 5 or 6 of his own?  It's all part of this strategy to get certain threads locked up.  It is unfortunate that one forum member is indirectly granted so much power, but I guess there's not much else the moderator can do about it.

You are absolutely right. He spends most of his time on the HO modelling threads, but comes over here just to throw elbows. It's like a moth to a lightbulb. This thread is typical. He offered nothing. No research. Nothing thoughtful. He obviously has no background in the subject area. Plenty of unsubstantiated opinions, but then he starts contradicting himself. And if anyone points that out, well, then the fuse is always lit at that point.

Settlement of the West and the railroads' role in it is a particular interest of mine, dating back to my History Thesis which covered a good deal of railroad building, homesteading, and government land policy, 1837-1920, which was the effective Settlement Era. I did my Thesis under the direct supervision of Dr. K. Ross Toole, Hammond Professor of Western History, one of the best known and most widely respected of Western Historians and himself a recognized Settlement Era expert.

My resource materials cover 120 linear feet of shelf space. At 1,000 pp., 8,000 footnotes, and 30 pages of single spaced 10 pt Bibliography, I can suggest that I have done my research on Western Settlement and Homesteading, or at a minimum, I have at least made an effort to educate myself on the topic.

TomDiehl's background?

From this thread, I think the answer is clear.

Because of my background, and my own family's homesteading experiences, a thread like this is ordinarily a very interesting discussion for me. A fascinating era. But, it also shows how poor some people's historical perspective is as well -- the idea that Homesteaders got "land grants." People like LC spout that stuff off pretending they know something and even though its prettly clearly spelled out by statute -- an area he claims expertise -- he was wrong. He has no expertise in that area, he didn't do his homework, and he simply spouted off.

What does TomDiehl get out of it?

I think that answer is clear as well. LC's undying gratitude.

As LC said, a conversation between Michael and his lap dog.

Yes, we've read everything you "claim" for a background. That would make you what, about 150 years old? Another curious thing of note, Michael's "background" doesn't show up in his forum profile. To find anything about it, forum members need to go on a scavenger hunt through the threads. I wonder why that is?

And he notices that I "spend most of my time on the HO modelling threads." Searching for more insult ammo are we Michael?

But then I have offered more than fragments of sentences and quotes from other forum members to try to prove them wrong.

[TomDiehl]

And as I said before, I am quite aware of history ...

You have provided no evidence of it to date.

The same could be said for you.

You wouldn't have a basis to judge that, would you?

What courses did you take in history? Where did you develop your expertise? Who did you study with?

I haven't seen a single reference to a scholarly work or source from you.

I haven't seen a single accurate factual statement from you. Including statements about your own statements.

Yes, I've already commented on your "reading ability" (or in this case, lack thereof).

[MichaelSol]

And as I said before, I am quite aware of history ...

You have provided no evidence of it to date.

The same could be said for you.

You wouldn't have a basis to judge that, would you?

What courses did you take in history? Where did you develop your expertise? Who did you study with?

I haven't seen a single reference to a scholarly work or source from you.

I haven't seen a single accurate factual statement from you. Including statements about your own statements.

Yes, I've already commented on your "reading ability" (or in this case, lack thereof).

Yup, with your usual accuracy.

[MichaelSol]

And he notices that I "spend most of my time on the HO modelling threads." Searching for more insult ammo are we Michael?

You provide far more here than I could ever keep up with.

Too bad there is nothing about the thread topic.

[Poppa_Zit]

This has become a typical TomDiehl thread.

 

 

Funny, while reading this thread for the 1st time today, I was thinking to myself, "Great, another Michael Sol know it all with FM acting as his lap dog thread."

Bert 

Bert -

You are dead on...

I feel bad for Tom as I have walked a mile in his shoes.

Funny how a guy like Sol who claims to be a railroader, newspaper editor, lawyer and judge can end up looking so foolish when his claims are exposed to the light of day, as to FM, well he is just full of it and merits zero consideration...

LC

At this point, is there a reason why these guys can't use emails to make these silly exchanges, or can they not perform unless they have an audience?

PZ

[MichaelSol]

This has become a typical TomDiehl thread.

 

 

Funny, while reading this thread for the 1st time today, I was thinking to myself, "Great, another Michael Sol know it all with FM acting as his lap dog thread."

Bert 

Bert -

You are dead on...

I feel bad for Tom as I have walked a mile in his shoes.

Funny how a guy like Sol who claims to be a railroader, newspaper editor, lawyer and judge can end up looking so foolish when his claims are exposed to the light of day, as to FM, well he is just full of it and merits zero consideration...

LC

At this point, is there a reason why these guys can't use emails to make these silly exchanges, or can they not perform unless they have an audience?

PZ

It's the standard TomDiehl thread, and LC and Bert always show up ... and its never about the thread topic.

[solzrules]

This has become a typical TomDiehl thread.

 

 

Funny, while reading this thread for the 1st time today, I was thinking to myself, "Great, another Michael Sol know it all with FM acting as his lap dog thread."

Bert 

Bert -

You are dead on...

I feel bad for Tom as I have walked a mile in his shoes.

Funny how a guy like Sol who claims to be a railroader, newspaper editor, lawyer and judge can end up looking so foolish when his claims are exposed to the light of day, as to FM, well he is just full of it and merits zero consideration...

LC

At this point, is there a reason why these guys can't use emails to make these silly exchanges, or can they not perform unless they have an audience?

PZ

Careful, PZ.  I would hardly call this a performance. 

I have seen school children argue over more improtant topics. 

[TomDiehl]

This has become a typical TomDiehl thread.

 

 

Funny, while reading this thread for the 1st time today, I was thinking to myself, "Great, another Michael Sol know it all with FM acting as his lap dog thread."

Bert 

Bert -

You are dead on...

I feel bad for Tom as I have walked a mile in his shoes.

Funny how a guy like Sol who claims to be a railroader, newspaper editor, lawyer and judge can end up looking so foolish when his claims are exposed to the light of day, as to FM, well he is just full of it and merits zero consideration...

LC

At this point, is there a reason why these guys can't use emails to make these silly exchanges, or can they not perform unless they have an audience?

PZ

It's the standard TomDiehl thread, and LC and Bert always show up ... and its never about the thread topic.

And Tommy and LC and Bert gang up on the poor defenseless Michael.

Funny how all these people are wrong and Michael is not.

Maybe he should change his screenname to MichaelHubris

[Limitedclear]

This has become a typical TomDiehl thread.

 

 

Funny, while reading this thread for the 1st time today, I was thinking to myself, "Great, another Michael Sol know it all with FM acting as his lap dog thread."

Bert 

Bert -

You are dead on...

I feel bad for Tom as I have walked a mile in his shoes.

Funny how a guy like Sol who claims to be a railroader, newspaper editor, lawyer and judge can end up looking so foolish when his claims are exposed to the light of day, as to FM, well he is just full of it and merits zero consideration...

LC

At this point, is there a reason why these guys can't use emails to make these silly exchanges, or can they not perform unless they have an audience?

PZ

It's the standard TomDiehl thread, and LC and Bert always show up ... and its never about the thread topic.

Nice try Mikey. Especially since I started the thread and it was twisted by your buddy FM and most of the discussion is about what he twisted it into, not what I originally posted. You are again just trying to avoid the perception that you are on the losing end. Suck it up and take it. The fact that folks may have allegedly had to pay a nominal amount for government land and farm it for five years for fee title still makes it a land grant as far as I'm concerned.

LC

[Limitedclear]

This has become a typical TomDiehl thread.

Which means Bergie will soon lock it up.  Tom has discovered a way to get rid of threads of whose content he is uncomfortable - just keep on obfuscating until no one knows or cares what the original topic was, and pretty soon the moderator locks it up as a sort of "mercy killing".  You all notice how Tom purposefully responds to a single post with 5 or 6 of his own?  It's all part of this strategy to get certain threads locked up.  It is unfortunate that one forum member is indirectly granted so much power, but I guess there's not much else the moderator can do about it.

You are absolutely right. He spends most of his time on the HO modelling threads, but comes over here just to throw elbows. It's like a moth to a lightbulb. This thread is typical. He offered nothing. No research. Nothing thoughtful. He obviously has no background in the subject area. Plenty of unsubstantiated opinions, but then he starts contradicting himself. And if anyone points that out, well, then the fuse is always lit at that point.

Settlement of the West and the railroads' role in it is a particular interest of mine, dating back to my History Thesis which covered a good deal of railroad building, homesteading, and government land policy, 1837-1920, which was the effective Settlement Era. I did my Thesis under the direct supervision of Dr. K. Ross Toole, Hammond Professor of Western History, one of the best known and most widely respected of Western Historians and himself a recognized Settlement Era expert.

My resource materials cover 120 linear feet of shelf space. At 1,000 pp., 8,000 footnotes, and 30 pages of single spaced 10 pt Bibliography, I can suggest that I have done my research on Western Settlement and Homesteading, or at a minimum, I have at least made an effort to educate myself on the topic.

TomDiehl's background?

From this thread, I think the answer is clear.

Because of my background, and my own family's homesteading experiences, a thread like this is ordinarily a very interesting discussion for me. A fascinating era. But, it also shows how poor some people's historical perspective is as well -- the idea that Homesteaders got "land grants." People like LC spout that stuff off pretending they know something and even though its prettly clearly spelled out by statute -- an area he claims expertise -- he was wrong. He has no expertise in that area, he didn't do his homework, and he simply spouted off.

What does TomDiehl get out of it?

I think that answer is clear as well. LC's undying gratitude.

For a guy who allegedly has done so many things and has so much "research material" it is amazing how little actual fact makes it into your posts Mikey. Indeed, I see a LOT more bluster, BS, argument and innuendo in your posts. You are just pounding on the table, as usual. Wasting everyone's time...

LC

[edblysard]

It is getting close to the end...

Mickey usually saves the conspiracy theory till just after his statement that the thread is off topic(even though he helped take it there)…which he usually saves for the next to last, after he makes his claim to expertise in what ever the given subject is, touts his “degrees” a little, then pets Dave a little..

Makes one wonder…if he acts this way in a public forum, it makes sense he is a “former” judge, especially if he applied and exhibited the same megalomania from the bench.

Ok Mickey, time for your “all the regulars” comment…

(sorry guys, I was on vacation, didn’t notice it was pick on Mike time again)

 

Oh, and Mike, you may want to check the Texas land grants to Austin from the Mexican government, along with the thousand upon thousands of acres given to settlers in Kentucky, Alabama, Louisiana and Tennessee by the US government prior to the US Civil war, the only requirement was they has to occupy the land seven years (build a home) and attempt to make it productive.

They were not required to buy the land at all, in any monetary fashion, other that paying the survey fee, and after the seven years requirement was met, the only “cost” to them in regards to the land was paying the fee to claim title.

[MichaelSol]

I looked back, and I did completely forget that you started this thread, and then you and TomDiehl immediately changed the subject to a gratuitous, ad hominem attack on FM, and he hadn't posted a thing on the thread. Most of the first page is an attack on FM.

This whole thread, from start to finish, is simply you two, typically, using Trains forums for your drive by postings. Pretty chickensh***. 

Gosh, you've even been moderated about it, and warned about it, but you continue to do it -- just not the kind of behavior it seems like someone of your "claimed" credentials and "claimed" experience would have time for, let alone the disposition for it. I see you post little of substance -- mostly catty remarks and personal vendettas.

Of course, with a fake screen name, you can claim anything you want, and call anybody anything you want. You and Diehl seem compelled on this stuff. It's thread after thread. Neither of you seem to have anything better or more grown-up to do.

[bobwilcox]

It is getting close to the end...

The end is here, the only thing left is to keep to body from stinking.

[MichaelSol]

Oh, and Mike, you may want to check the Texas land grants to Austin from the Mexican government, along with the thousand upon thousands of acres given to settlers in Kentucky, Alabama, Louisiana and Tennessee by the US government prior to the US Civil war, the only requirement was they has to occupy the land seven years (build a home) and attempt to make it productive.

They were not required to buy the land at all, in any monetary fashion, other that paying the survey fee, and after the seven years requirement was met, the only “cost” to them in regards to the land was paying the fee to claim title.

Well, the first U.S. Homestead Act was in 1862.

I guess when we are talking about the "Homesteaders" in the American West,  we wouldn't really be talking about what Mexican land the Mexican government gave to Austin in 1823, or what the Canadian governments, Russian governments, or Chinese governments may have done or given or charged to promote settlement for that matter -- would we?

Or settlers prior to the Civil War since neither the Homestead Act nor the Pacific Railroad Act -- the contemporaneous topics of a discussion -- existed then.

[Limitedclear]

Hmmm. Perhpas this little blurb from the National Park Service will shed a little light on Mikeys smoke and mirrors act...

LC

"The Homestead Act of 1862 has been called one the most important pieces of Legislation in the history of the United States. Signed into law in 1862 by Abraham Lincoln after the secession of southern states, this Act turned over vast amounts of the public domain to private citizens. 270 millions acres, or 10% of the area of the United States was claimed and settled under this act.

A homesteader had only to be the head of a household and at least 21 years of age to claim a 160 acre parcel of land. Settlers from all walks of life including newly arrived immigrants, farmers without land of their own from the East, single women and former slaves came to meet the challenge of "proving up" and keeping this "free land". Each homesteader had to live on the land, build a home, make improvements and farm for 5 years before they were eligible to "prove up". A total filing fee of $18 was the only money required, but sacrifice and hard work exacted a different price from the hopeful settlers."

[edblysard]

You were not arguing homesteading, but the term land grants...the term you took exception too.

Originally you implied only railroads received "free" land in the form of grants, while no one else did.

Wrong, American history is full of examples of the “state” giving or granting land and its use in exchange for promise of settlement, cultivation and so forth.

You only clarified your statement later, when it bolstered your argument.

Backtracking one of your areas of expertise also?

[Limitedclear]

Hmmm. Interesting, of course railroads were the only villans...

I guess there were others who received  land grants weho were n't those pure of heart settlers. Mikey, oh, Mikey...FOFLMAO...

LC

Fraud and corporate use

The intent of the Homestead Act was to grant land for agriculture. However, in the arid areas west of the Rocky Mountains, 640 acres was generally too little land for a viable farm (at least prior to major public investments in irrigation projects). In these areas, homesteads were instead used to control resources, especially water. A common scheme was for an individual acting as a front for a large cattle operation to file for a homestead surrounding a water source under the pretense that the land was being used as a farm. Once granted, use of that water source would be denied to other cattle ranchers, effectively closing off the adjacent public land to competition. This method could also be used to gain ownership of timber and oil-producing land, as the Federal government charged royalties for extraction of these resources from public lands. On the other hand, homesteading schemes were generally pointless for land containing "locatable minerals", such as gold and silver, which could be controlled through mining claims and for which the Federal government did not charge royalties.

There was no systematic method used to evaluate claims under the Homestead Act. Land offices would rely on affidavits from witnesses that the claimant had lived on the land for the required period of time and made the required improvements. In practice, many of these witnesses were bribed or otherwise in cahoots with the claimant.

[n012944]

I looked back, and I did completely forget that you started this thread, and then you and TomDiehl immediately changed the subject to a gratuitous, ad hominem attack on FM, and he hadn't posted a thing on the thread. Most of the first page is an attack on FM.

This whole thread, from start to finish, is simply you two, typically, using Trains forums for your drive by postings. Pretty chickensh***. 

Gosh, you've even been moderated about it, and warned about it, but you continue to do it -- just not the kind of behavior it seems like someone of your "claimed" credentials and "claimed" experience would have time for, let alone the disposition for it. I see you post little of substance -- mostly catty remarks and personal vendettas.

Of course, with a fake screen name, you can claim anything you want, and call anybody anything you want. You and Diehl seem compelled on this stuff. It's thread after thread. Neither of you seem to have anything better or more grown-up to do.

Most of the 5th, 6th, and 7th pages are you attacking TomDiehl, so please be careful as you fall off your high horse.  As for you second paragraph, I was went back and counted the number of postings on this thread by LC and yourself.  As of 7:15pm on Sunday LC had ten postings, MichaelSol had 35. The direction that this thread went, was influenced much more by yourself than LC.  BTW since you want all research material posted, to get the post count I used the Trains.com website, thread "Don't Blame the RRs", pages 1-7.

 

Bert

[MP173]

and this was such a good thread before I left for the weekend.

No doubt about it, land grants were given and it is history.  There was alot of open spaces to fill in the 19th century.  Had to happen somehow.  It seemed to have worked out pretty well.

ed

 

[Limitedclear]

 

"The Homestead Act of 1862

37th Congress Session II 1862

Chapter LXXV. - An Act to secure Homesteads to actual Settlers on the Public Domain.

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person who is the head of a family, or who has arrived at the age of twenty-one years, and is a citizen of the United States, or who shall have filed his declaration of intention to become such, as required by the naturalization laws of the United States, and who has never borne arms against the United States Government or given aid and comfort to its enemies, shall, from and after the first January, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, be entitled to enter one quarter section or a less quantity of unappropriated public lands, upon which said person may have filed a preemption claim, or which may, at the time the application is made, be subject to preemption at one dollar and twenty-five cents, or less, per acre; or eighty acres or less of such unappropriated lands, at two dollars and fifty cents per acre, to be located in a body, in conformity to the legal subdivisions of the public lands, and after the same shall have been surveyed; or eighty acres or less of such unappropriated lands, at two dollars and fifty cents per acre, to be located in a body, in conformity to the legal subdivisions of the public lands, and after the same shall have been surveyed...."

So, lets see Mikey. Says above that folks paid one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre for the Homestead Act lands. He forgot to mention that many did not. Note that even the statutory language states "one quarter section or a less quantity of unappropriated public lands, upon which said person may have filed a preemption claim, or which may, at the time the application is made, be subject to preemption at one dollar and twenty-five cents, or less, per acre...."(emphasis added)

Mikey, I don't need a HUGE library to run rings around you...research...well I guess when you were a judge you had a law clerk for that...

LC

[TomDiehl]

I looked back, and I did completely forget that you started this thread, and then you and TomDiehl immediately changed the subject to a gratuitous, ad hominem attack on FM, and he hadn't posted a thing on the thread. Most of the first page is an attack on FM.

This whole thread, from start to finish, is simply you two, typically, using Trains forums for your drive by postings. Pretty chickensh***. 

Gosh, you've even been moderated about it, and warned about it, but you continue to do it -- just not the kind of behavior it seems like someone of your "claimed" credentials and "claimed" experience would have time for, let alone the disposition for it. I see you post little of substance -- mostly catty remarks and personal vendettas.

Of course, with a fake screen name, you can claim anything you want, and call anybody anything you want. You and Diehl seem compelled on this stuff. It's thread after thread. Neither of you seem to have anything better or more grown-up to do.

Most of the 5th, 6th, and 7th pages are you attacking TomDiehl, so please be careful as you fall off your high horse.  As for you second paragraph, I was went back and counted the number of postings on this thread by LC and yourself.  As of 7:15pm on Sunday LC had ten postings, MichaelSol had 35. The direction that this thread went, was influenced much more by yourself than LC.  BTW since you want all research material posted, to get the post count I used the Trains.com website, thread "Don't Blame the RRs", pages 1-7.

Bert

What I find even funnier, Bert, is Michael's reference to "claimed credentials." According to his profile, he doesn't even have any of those.

But he does say that he's told us ALL about them in the threads. So, what are the prizes for the scavenger hunt to find Michael's credentials?

And wondering where someone is amounts to an attack on them???

BTW, when were we "moderated" and warned?" And about what? By who?

[edblysard]

Wow,

You have 12, 10 foot long book shelves full of Zane Gray paperbacks?

We are impressed….

My resource materials cover 120 linear feet of shelf space. At 1,000 pp., 8,000 footnotes, and 30 pages of single spaced 10 pt Bibliography, I can suggest that I have done my research on Western Settlement and Homesteading, or at a minimum, I have at least made an effort to educate myself on the topic.

[jeaton]

Talk about a classic diversion.  I don't think many would give a rats behind for what happened to whom with the programs designed to settle and develop federal lands in the 19th Century.  If railroads got more than they should have under these programs, I think that any rational study would show that subsequent government action effectively took back the excesses and more.

In the last 10 years, the US farm industry received $18.3 billion for conservation subsidies and $113.5 billion in commodity subsidies, some $60+ billion in the last three years. 

And the railroads are not being fair or reasonable?  Give me a break!

 

 

[MichaelSol]

 

"The Homestead Act of 1862

37th Congress Session II 1862

Chapter LXXV. - An Act to secure Homesteads to actual Settlers on the Public Domain.

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person who is the head of a family, or who has arrived at the age of twenty-one years, and is a citizen of the United States, or who shall have filed his declaration of intention to become such, as required by the naturalization laws of the United States, and who has never borne arms against the United States Government or given aid and comfort to its enemies, shall, from and after the first January, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, be entitled to enter one quarter section or a less quantity of unappropriated public lands, upon which said person may have filed a preemption claim, or which may, at the time the application is made, be subject to preemption at one dollar and twenty-five cents, or less, per acre; or eighty acres or less of such unappropriated lands, at two dollars and fifty cents per acre, to be located in a body, in conformity to the legal subdivisions of the public lands, and after the same shall have been surveyed; or eighty acres or less of such unappropriated lands, at two dollars and fifty cents per acre, to be located in a body, in conformity to the legal subdivisions of the public lands, and after the same shall have been surveyed...."

So, lets see Mikey. Says above that folks paid one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre for the Homestead Act lands. He forgot to mention that many did not. Note that even the statutory language states "one quarter section or a less quantity of unappropriated public lands, upon which said person may have filed a preemption claim, or which may, at the time the application is made, be subject to preemption at one dollar and twenty-five cents, or less, per acre...."(emphasis added)

Mikey, I don't need a HUGE library to run rings around you...research...well I guess when you were a judge you had a law clerk for that...

LC

You did all that work to find out that the Homestead Act offered the land at $1.25 an acre ... which is exactly what I stated? True, I did not mention the $2.50 an acre requirement.

Run some more rings ...

 

[MichaelSol]

Hmmm. Interesting, of course railroads were the only villans...

I guess there were others who received  land grants weho were n't those pure of heart settlers. Mikey, oh, Mikey...FOFLMAO...

LC

Fraud and corporate use

The intent of the Homestead Act was to grant land for agriculture. However, in the arid areas west of the Rocky Mountains, 640 acres was generally too little land for a viable farm (at least prior to major public investments in irrigation projects). In these areas, homesteads were instead used to control resources, especially water. A common scheme was for an individual acting as a front for a large cattle operation to file for a homestead surrounding a water source under the pretense that the land was being used as a farm. Once granted, use of that water source would be denied to other cattle ranchers, effectively closing off the adjacent public land to competition. This method could also be used to gain ownership of timber and oil-producing land, as the Federal government charged royalties for extraction of these resources from public lands. On the other hand, homesteading schemes were generally pointless for land containing "locatable minerals", such as gold and silver, which could be controlled through mining claims and for which the Federal government did not charge royalties.

There was no systematic method used to evaluate claims under the Homestead Act. Land offices would rely on affidavits from witnesses that the claimant had lived on the land for the required period of time and made the required improvements. In practice, many of these witnesses were bribed or otherwise in cahoots with the claimant.

Gosh, another internet researcher. And a scholarly source to boot!

Let me restate what I posted a few pages ago, and you will indeed see that I specifically stated there were Homesteader abuses as well -- no need to lie about what I said -- it's there. Interestingly, Homestead abuse was most prevalent by non-homesteaders. Often by persons connected with the Railroad.

Despite a great deal of effort, I am still looking for the example of a Homesteader that took advantage of the Railroads and the Railroad land grants. I am sure those wily Homesteaders took advantage of the Railroads, positive -- I just haven't been able to find it yet.

Perhaps you would be willing to provide me with an example found during your strenuous ring running.

You would note many of the  abuses, if you did further research, or any at all, involved Railroad "finders" -- paid by the railroads (usually $25 a head) -- often employees of the railroad "colonization" department -- to relocate farmers to Homestead territory -- and then manipulating the purchase or "proving" to acquire property for the railroad, its officers, their friends (often local water interests), or the "finder."

Anyway, here is the post, as you clearly have forgotten it. I am sure it is an honest oversight on your part.

Please point out any point that you see inaccurate, or that is contrary to the research you did while running rings:

-------------------------------

A little rewriting of history going on here. Let me guess that none of you gentlemen actually know anything about the Homestead Act of 1862, or the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909. Just a guess.

1.   The Homestead Acts were not land grants. Farmers had to pay fees to purchase the title right, then "prove up" in order to receive title by a minimum of five years of working the land. They were required to specifically occupy the land and work it. They could buy the land outright for $1.25 an acre. That rate had been in effect since 1800 for government lands and was available to farmers, railroads, manufacturers, loggers -- the public as a whole. The only thing the Homestead Act did was to substitute an optional, alternative work requirement for persons desiring to purchase agricultural land specifically. The government provided no loans or subsidies to the Homesteaders by which to do this, although the government not only extended land grants for free to the Union Pacific, but provided cash loans as well.

2.   Excise taxes and government land sales (including homestead fee income) were primary sources of Federal Government revenue during that era.

3.    The Desert Land Act of 1877, under which many cattle spreads were created, permitted an initial purchase at 25 cents an acre, but an additional $1 per acre was required to be paid the Federal Government after the owner brought the irrigation required under the act to his parcel. That brought the purchase price up to the standard $1.25 an acre that government lands had been sold for to the general public.

4.   The railroads themselves were the primary advocates and the primary beneficiaries of homesteading, but the territories and states also demanded them because the Federal government paid no property taxes to the states, whereas private landholders did. See the railroad evasion of that requirement set forth below.

5.   The Union Pacific received actual land grants valued in excess of four times the estimated cost of construction of the transcontinental railroad. No Homesteader received anything of any value in excess of what he either paid for outright, or worked for by "proving up" for five long years.

6.   No government receivership proceeding or assistance was available when Dad broke his leg and couldn't farm and lost everything, or when the dry years came -- the dry years that government and railroad settlement "experts" said would never come again -- and blew everything away, or when the blizzard hit and the cattle died. Neither the Bank nor the government looked the other way when the mortgage was due or the taxes due and couldn't be paid. The railroads that made the promises weren't interested when the promises proved to be false, and people's lives and hopes were ruined in human catastrophes of despair resulting from the railroad's "honest" desire to make a buck.

7.  While there were undoubtedly minor instances of homestead corruption, there was nothing like the wholesale corruption of railroad land grants. See, Montana Improvement Company, Credit Mobilier.

8.   With some minor exceptions, only the railroads received bona fide land grants in American history. Farmers did not.

"Underscoring concerns about its monopoly attitude, the Northern Pacific immediately became embroiled in scandal in the form of the Montana Improvement Company, which contracted to cut Railroad timber lands and supply the Railroad with ties, lumber, and cordwood, in return for the Railroad hauling the Improvement Company's lumber for less than half of that of competitors. The Railroad was the majority stockholder, by $100, of the Montana Improvement Company.  Improvement Company foremen did not care to distinguish between railroad land grant sections and the alternating government sections, freely cutting from both.  The abuses were so widespread that by 1885 a government report to President Cleveland charged that "depredations upon public timber are universal, flagrant and limitless." Civil and criminal suits followed against both the

[MichaelSol]

Wow,

You have 12, 10 foot long book shelves full of Zane Gray paperbacks?

We are impressed….

Were that true, I have no doubt you would be. No doubt at all.

[MichaelSol]

Most of the 5th, 6th, and 7th pages are you attacking TomDiehl, so please be careful as you fall off your high horse. 

I spent most of those posts specifically quoting TomDiehl.

I understand exactly why you would characterize quoting TomDiehl as an "attack" on TomDiehl. There would be no better way to do it.