jeaton wrote:There is no rational free market economic justification for growing crops on this land. The soil is poor, the climate is iffy, it is geographicly the most remote from markets, the volume of the product produced is insufficient to support the most economic or cost effective methods of rail transport, and the potentially cheaper option of water transport is not there. If it were not for federal government subsidies, there would be either no or substantially less Montana land in grain crops.
There is no rational free market economic justification for growing crops on this land. The soil is poor, the climate is iffy, it is geographicly the most remote from markets, the volume of the product produced is insufficient to support the most economic or cost effective methods of rail transport, and the potentially cheaper option of water transport is not there. If it were not for federal government subsidies, there would be either no or substantially less Montana land in grain crops.
futuremodal wrote: Limitedclear wrote: futuremodal wrote: MichaelSol wrote:While I remain puzzled as to why it is so important to a couple of you to "prove" that Homesteaders got "land grants" and that this somehow makes Homesteaders complicit in "something" -- not even sure what -- but apparently comparable to what railroads received, I fail to see what the comparison accomplishes for you -- particularly when it compels you to rewrite the historical record to achieve it. If I may recap.... 1. Someone posted the usual tripe about farmers getting all sorts of subsidies (which of course has nothing to do with railroad monopolistic pricing practices, unless farm subsidies are intended to reciprocate for such gouging!) 2. I asked if farmers had gotten land grants like the railroads did. 3. The usual suspects all bit, saying that yes indeed farmers got land grants via the Homestead Act. 4. Michael and myself then refuted this absurb claim, as lands deeded via the Homestead Act have absolutely nothing in common with the railroad land grants. 5. The usual suspects then filibustered and obfuscated ad nauseum, taking their standard position far out on the branch of suspect credibility. 6. Well, here we are on page 9 or 10 of this thread, and as usual the topic in question ("don't blame the Railroads" - don't blame them for what? Differential pricing? Favoring overseas importers to the detriment of domestic producers? H*** yes, they are to blame!) gets lost in a sea of history revision by the oligarchy apologists. There, now ya'll are caught up. V dude, pass the Cheesy Poofs! And along comes the spin doctor, again, in a lame attempt to pull Mikey's chestnuts out of the fire...FOFLMAO...FM you are nothing if not predictable... LC Yep, it takes a "spin doctor" to point out the irrefutable fact that Homestead lands are unrelated to railroad land grants, even as the ilkish bandwagon of ignorance continues unabated down the double digit IQ slope of no return.........FOFLMAO........LC you are nothing if not predictable....
Limitedclear wrote: futuremodal wrote: MichaelSol wrote:While I remain puzzled as to why it is so important to a couple of you to "prove" that Homesteaders got "land grants" and that this somehow makes Homesteaders complicit in "something" -- not even sure what -- but apparently comparable to what railroads received, I fail to see what the comparison accomplishes for you -- particularly when it compels you to rewrite the historical record to achieve it. If I may recap.... 1. Someone posted the usual tripe about farmers getting all sorts of subsidies (which of course has nothing to do with railroad monopolistic pricing practices, unless farm subsidies are intended to reciprocate for such gouging!) 2. I asked if farmers had gotten land grants like the railroads did. 3. The usual suspects all bit, saying that yes indeed farmers got land grants via the Homestead Act. 4. Michael and myself then refuted this absurb claim, as lands deeded via the Homestead Act have absolutely nothing in common with the railroad land grants. 5. The usual suspects then filibustered and obfuscated ad nauseum, taking their standard position far out on the branch of suspect credibility. 6. Well, here we are on page 9 or 10 of this thread, and as usual the topic in question ("don't blame the Railroads" - don't blame them for what? Differential pricing? Favoring overseas importers to the detriment of domestic producers? H*** yes, they are to blame!) gets lost in a sea of history revision by the oligarchy apologists. There, now ya'll are caught up. V dude, pass the Cheesy Poofs! And along comes the spin doctor, again, in a lame attempt to pull Mikey's chestnuts out of the fire...FOFLMAO...FM you are nothing if not predictable... LC
futuremodal wrote: MichaelSol wrote:While I remain puzzled as to why it is so important to a couple of you to "prove" that Homesteaders got "land grants" and that this somehow makes Homesteaders complicit in "something" -- not even sure what -- but apparently comparable to what railroads received, I fail to see what the comparison accomplishes for you -- particularly when it compels you to rewrite the historical record to achieve it. If I may recap.... 1. Someone posted the usual tripe about farmers getting all sorts of subsidies (which of course has nothing to do with railroad monopolistic pricing practices, unless farm subsidies are intended to reciprocate for such gouging!) 2. I asked if farmers had gotten land grants like the railroads did. 3. The usual suspects all bit, saying that yes indeed farmers got land grants via the Homestead Act. 4. Michael and myself then refuted this absurb claim, as lands deeded via the Homestead Act have absolutely nothing in common with the railroad land grants. 5. The usual suspects then filibustered and obfuscated ad nauseum, taking their standard position far out on the branch of suspect credibility. 6. Well, here we are on page 9 or 10 of this thread, and as usual the topic in question ("don't blame the Railroads" - don't blame them for what? Differential pricing? Favoring overseas importers to the detriment of domestic producers? H*** yes, they are to blame!) gets lost in a sea of history revision by the oligarchy apologists. There, now ya'll are caught up. V dude, pass the Cheesy Poofs!
MichaelSol wrote:While I remain puzzled as to why it is so important to a couple of you to "prove" that Homesteaders got "land grants" and that this somehow makes Homesteaders complicit in "something" -- not even sure what -- but apparently comparable to what railroads received, I fail to see what the comparison accomplishes for you -- particularly when it compels you to rewrite the historical record to achieve it.
If I may recap....
1. Someone posted the usual tripe about farmers getting all sorts of subsidies (which of course has nothing to do with railroad monopolistic pricing practices, unless farm subsidies are intended to reciprocate for such gouging!)
2. I asked if farmers had gotten land grants like the railroads did.
3. The usual suspects all bit, saying that yes indeed farmers got land grants via the Homestead Act.
4. Michael and myself then refuted this absurb claim, as lands deeded via the Homestead Act have absolutely nothing in common with the railroad land grants.
5. The usual suspects then filibustered and obfuscated ad nauseum, taking their standard position far out on the branch of suspect credibility.
6. Well, here we are on page 9 or 10 of this thread, and as usual the topic in question ("don't blame the Railroads" - don't blame them for what? Differential pricing? Favoring overseas importers to the detriment of domestic producers? H*** yes, they are to blame!) gets lost in a sea of history revision by the oligarchy apologists.
There, now ya'll are caught up.
V dude, pass the Cheesy Poofs!
And along comes the spin doctor, again, in a lame attempt to pull Mikey's chestnuts out of the fire...FOFLMAO...FM you are nothing if not predictable...
LC
Yep, it takes a "spin doctor" to point out the irrefutable fact that Homestead lands are unrelated to railroad land grants, even as the ilkish bandwagon of ignorance continues unabated down the double digit IQ slope of no return.........FOFLMAO........LC you are nothing if not predictable....
Great bandwagon ya got there FM, How's it riding???
FOFLMAO...
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Have fun with your trains
Reading through the whole topic here, you sort of get the picture of where Montanans get their "victim" complex. They paid the big bucks for their land, while the railroads building through got theirs and more than they needed for free.
Somewhere around 1914-1915 my Grandfather picked up some land in Blaine County, MT north of Chinook. I don't know how much land, I think maybe only 40 acres and I don't know the price he paid. He worked it himself for a couple of years, but with a growing family at some point he went to Chinook to work his trade as a butcher. He let out the land to a neighbor for a share of the crop. It may have been as early as the first year of that arrangement, but one of the fairly frequent hail storms of the era devastated the crops. When the neighbor personally delivered the one bushel of wheat as his share, my Grandfather concluded that growing crops in that country was a pretty stupid idea. He packed up the family and came back east.
In his autobiography 50 years later, Chet Huntley stated the view that the lands in the "Big Sky" country would probably have been better left as grasslands and would have been much more suitable for cattle grazing as the basic agriculture activity.
And Montana farmers are victimized by the railroads.
MichaelSol wrote: TomDiehl wrote: MichaelSol wrote: TomDiehl wrote:Plus, are you trying to tell us that the Union Pacific (or any other railroad that got the grants) would have been able to keep the land if they DIDN'T build a common carrier railroad on it? They really got the land "free" with some rather large strings attached. (might be interesting to see how Michael edits this one)It was obviously a terrible burden on the railroads. I don't know why they even bothered. The railroads had to invest labor and materials to construct the railroad up front, just like the homesteaders had to develop a farm or ranch within a given time frame. Nobody got "something for nothing." It is something for nothing. Every business has to invest labor and materials up front. The government usually doesn't give them alternate sections of land for the privilege.
TomDiehl wrote: MichaelSol wrote: TomDiehl wrote:Plus, are you trying to tell us that the Union Pacific (or any other railroad that got the grants) would have been able to keep the land if they DIDN'T build a common carrier railroad on it? They really got the land "free" with some rather large strings attached. (might be interesting to see how Michael edits this one)It was obviously a terrible burden on the railroads. I don't know why they even bothered. The railroads had to invest labor and materials to construct the railroad up front, just like the homesteaders had to develop a farm or ranch within a given time frame. Nobody got "something for nothing."
MichaelSol wrote: TomDiehl wrote:Plus, are you trying to tell us that the Union Pacific (or any other railroad that got the grants) would have been able to keep the land if they DIDN'T build a common carrier railroad on it? They really got the land "free" with some rather large strings attached. (might be interesting to see how Michael edits this one)It was obviously a terrible burden on the railroads. I don't know why they even bothered.
TomDiehl wrote:Plus, are you trying to tell us that the Union Pacific (or any other railroad that got the grants) would have been able to keep the land if they DIDN'T build a common carrier railroad on it? They really got the land "free" with some rather large strings attached. (might be interesting to see how Michael edits this one)
The railroads had to invest labor and materials to construct the railroad up front, just like the homesteaders had to develop a farm or ranch within a given time frame. Nobody got "something for nothing."
And the government doesn't ususally get a transportation system built for them.
At that point in history, there was also the factor that the Civil War had put new emphasis on connecting the settled east and west coasts, if nothing else, for military movements. Moving the military by wagon or on foot would take months, as would a ship arond the Horn. They felt that distance and isolation could split the country again as easily as states rights did in 1861.
vsmith wrote: Dont need no stinkin' popcorn when you got Cheesy Poofs!!!
Sweeeeeet!
Limitedclear wrote:Subsequent grants including the Timber Culture Act of 1873, which authorized the transfer of 160 acres to farmers free and clear in exchange for their agreement to plant at least 40 acres with trees ... All of these acts were at their core, government land grant programs.
Subsequent grants including the Timber Culture Act of 1873, which authorized the transfer of 160 acres to farmers free and clear in exchange for their agreement to plant at least 40 acres with trees ... All of these acts were at their core, government land grant programs.
MichaelSol wrote:LimitedClear:Keeping in mind that his 160 acre spread would cost a total amount of $200.00 if he bought it at that price it still sounds like a grant to me.Well, since it was the going price for land, and since it represented a substantial amount compared to the typical income of the time, you apparently feel that everything that cost anything was a grant by today's standards. Odd that $200 farms would have to be mortgaged to pay the purchase price, if it was that cheap, and odder still that farmers lost them because they couldn't pay their "de minimus" mortgages. Odder still that thousands of banks on the Great Plains failed when those "de minimus" mortgages defaulted.Working the land for five years to get "free" land was a nice romantic vision. There is simply little economic reality to it, and notwithstanding Ed's expertise on Mexican Government land policies which appears to be highly relevant to you for some reason, this is borne out by actual real estate records reviewed by a number of historians documenting the Homesteading experience in America.And notwithstanding that Homesteaders generally bought their land, in no case did they receive four times the value for free -- actually for free -- as the Union Pacific did, nor were their mortgages guaranteed by the Government as the Union Pacific's bonds were. Nor did Homesteaders generally swindle their investors, embezzle from the government, run up enormous debts and go broke nearly bringing down Wall Street and the U.S. economy. Just not in the same league.While I remain puzzled as to why it is so important to a couple of you to "prove" that Homesteaders got "land grants" and that this somehow makes Homesteaders complicit in "something" -- not even sure what -- but apparently comparable to what railroads received, I fail to see what the comparison accomplishes for you -- particularly when it compels you to rewrite the historical record to achieve it.
LimitedClear:Keeping in mind that his 160 acre spread would cost a total amount of $200.00 if he bought it at that price it still sounds like a grant to me.
I see I'm not the only one that Michael uses his selective editing on.
Plus, are you trying to tell us that the Union Pacific (or any other railroad that got the grants) would have been able to keep the land if they DIDN'T build a common carrier railroad on it? They really got the land "free" with some rather large strings attached. (might be interesting to see how Michael edits this one)
Oh, and for the record, (re: your last paragraph above, unlike you, I have left the statement complete) the comparison was originally brought up in this thread by your lap dog.
LimitedClear: Keeping in mind that his 160 acre spread would cost a total amount of $200.00 if he bought it at that price it still sounds like a grant to me.
MichaelSol wrote: Limitedclear wrote: FOFLMAO, some judge you are... The statute states $1.25 OR LESS. In fact, as Ed has already pointed out many were charged much less, if anything at all. Shine on genius. Whether it is nominal consideration or no consideration, it still sounds like a grant. "As Ed has already pointed out ..."Now, there's a recommendation. A number of years ago I did a survey of Homesteading in Judith Basin County, Montana. It was settled primarily as a result of the Milwaukee Road expansion West, and had been heavily advertised back East by the railroad company. The land was eligible for the Enlarged Homestead Act acreage. Settlers flocked in. I happened upon a map showing the land ownerships as of 1916. The Clerk & Recorder's office there had all the real property records easily available. A sampling of records showed exactly what happened without looking to how the Mexican government treated Steve Austin according to "Ed".In fact, Homesteaders faced the same needs as any other business, and as any farmer does today.A Homesteader actually trying to "prove out" his land -- his five years of hard work now being classified as "nominal or no consideration" [what law school did you graduate from?] -- rarely succeeded. It is a charming, romantic fiction that Homesteaders typically worked out their five years and got clear title from a grateful U.S. Government that actually preferred the money. It apparently remains a romantic fiction held dearly by people like yourself who rely on "Ed" for your historical knowledge.It takes little imagination to see why that view is patently unrealistic, and I think anyone with a shred of business sense can see why.Farming is a credit-based business. The Farmer needed a credit line then just as he needs one today.If he didn't own the land, he didn't get the credit line from the bank. Five long years without credit is nearly inconceivable. The bank would, however, loan him the money to buy the land. And that is typically what happened. "Proving out" was not a viable means of becoming a successful Homesteader, and, while it may have happened incidentally, it was not typical for purely economic reasons -- the usual driving force in any business decision. A serious Homesteader simply could not afford to "prove out" his land. It made little economic sense to even try it.Nearly every farm abandonment when the dry years came resulted in a bank foreclosure -- because nearly every parcel was mortgaged to finance the original purchase. Most Homestead land was sold to the Homesteader for $1.25 an acre.There was no Homesteader "land grant".
Limitedclear wrote: FOFLMAO, some judge you are... The statute states $1.25 OR LESS. In fact, as Ed has already pointed out many were charged much less, if anything at all. Shine on genius. Whether it is nominal consideration or no consideration, it still sounds like a grant.
FOFLMAO, some judge you are...
The statute states $1.25 OR LESS. In fact, as Ed has already pointed out many were charged much less, if anything at all. Shine on genius.
Whether it is nominal consideration or no consideration, it still sounds like a grant.
I think that Ed has a LOT more credibility than you do Mikey, so I wouldn't take that idea too far, as I'm far from the only one who thinks so...
So, lets see, a farmer pays his $1.25 OR LESS per acre and buys the land OR he can choose to farm it for 5 years and get the land for free. In that five year period he not only vests his interest in fee title in the land but also gets to keep all of the fruits of his labors based upon farming the land during that time. Keeping in mind that his 160 acre spread would cost a total amount of $200.00 if he bought it at that price it still sounds like a grant to me. Especially when considered in the light of susequent developments. Federal Grants today require matching funds in most cases from states or localities. A match of $1.25 per acre is de minimus for outright ownership and certainly an in kind match (also very common in grants) such as improving the land in the case of the Homestead Act would also fit as a normal grant activity.
Subsequent grants including the Timber Culture Act of 1873, which authorized the transfer of 160 acres to farmers free and clear in exchange for their agreement to plant at least 40 acres with trees and the Reclaimation Act of 1902 which traded government lands to homesteaders in arid areas with a requirement that they contribute to irrigation costs over a ten year period. All of these acts were at their core, government land grant programs.
mudchicken wrote:Has "Sunny Jim" Sol ever looked at some of those GLO cash entry, credit and homestead exemptions outside of his one narrow area of interest? (Broad brush approach fails here)
Has "Sunny Jim" Sol ever looked at some of those GLO cash entry, credit and homestead exemptions outside of his one narrow area of interest? (Broad brush approach fails here)
LimitedClear: Seems to me that many settlers of our western states did indeed receive massive land grants from the Federal and in some cases (California) state land grants to settle and cultivate vast lands.
mudchicken wrote: And this has what application to the 75+% of the rail lines built in the eastern 1/3 this country?
And this has what application to the 75+% of the rail lines built in the eastern 1/3 this country?
And what of all the times railroads bought fee interest in lands or bought additional acreage?
daveklepper wrote:If reregulation means that railroads loose what profitability they now have, investment won't keep up with business demands for increased capacity and won't even keep the infrastructure in good shape. The eventual result might be a repeat of the WWI situation with nationalization and thus less competition, higher costs, and poorer service.
If reregulation means that railroads loose what profitability they now have, investment won't keep up with business demands for increased capacity and won't even keep the infrastructure in good shape. The eventual result might be a repeat of the WWI situation with nationalization and thus less competition, higher costs, and poorer service.
I can undersand all this concern abot captive shippers, failure to meet contractual obligationd with blame on "acts of the Eternal", but the bottom line is this:
Limitedclear wrote:FOFLMAO, some judge you are... The statute states $1.25 OR LESS. In fact, as Ed has already pointed out many were charged much less, if anything at all. Shine on genius. Whether it is nominal consideration or no consideration, it still sounds like a grant.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
(rolling on floor!)
vsmith wrote: Oh Boy! I've been just itching to use this smilie! Keep it up! I got lots of others!
vsmith wrote: g] Keep it up! I got lots of others!
Do you have one of a lawyer wacking a pit bull locked onto his ankle with an umbrella ?
MichaelSol wrote: Limitedclear wrote: "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 ...
Limitedclear wrote: "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
"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...
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 ...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.