Don't Blame the RRs

[jeaton]

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.

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.

And Montana farmers are victimized by the railroads.

 

 

 

[Anonymous]

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....

[vsmith]

 

 

 

[jeaton]

News Item:  Amtrak reports a significant increase in reservations for one way travel from rural California stations to Wisconsin's dairy country.

[Limitedclear]

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...

LC

[MP173]

Jeaton:

Now you've done it! 

Thrown gasoline on the Montana bonfire! 

Strap it in, here we go.

ed

[MichaelSol]

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.

This is just bizarre.

Here are the production numbers 1910, from  the United States Department of Agriculture, Yearbook of Agriculture, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1911, p.532.

State                        Average Bushel Production
        North Dakota            12.1
        South Dakota            12.1
        Nebraska                  17.5
        Kansas                      14.0
        Wisconsin                  16.6
        Minnesota                  13.0
        Iowa                          14.0
        Montana                     26.3

The soil is among the richest in the country, and produces the highest protein content wheat. It is specifically the wheat preferred by Japanese and Korean purchasers. Relative to the export port and destination, Montana wheat is the most advantageously situated of nearly all grain products.

Montana wheat farmers get nothing in federal subsidies compared to Texas cotton farmers at $230 an acre.

Not that it matters, because facts don't matter to the gentlemen involved.

[Murphy Siding]

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.

This is just bizarre.

Here are the production numbers 1910, from  the United States Department of Agriculture, Yearbook of Agriculture, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1911, p.532.

State                        Average Bushel Production
        North Dakota            12.1
        South Dakota            12.1
        Nebraska                  17.5
        Kansas                      14.0
        Wisconsin                  16.6
        Minnesota                  13.0
        Iowa                          14.0
        Montana                     26.3

The soil is among the richest in the country, and produces the highest protein content wheat. It is specifically the wheat preferred by Japanese and Korean purchasers. Relative to the export port and destination, Montana wheat is the most advantageously situated of nearly all grain products.

Montana wheat farmers get nothing in federal subsidies compared to Texas cotton farmers at $230 an acre.

Not that it matters, because facts don't matter to the gentlemen involved.

     1910?

[MichaelSol]

I might suggest that anyone interested in the Homestead Act and its implications, go to a source other than "Ed" and LC's online Park Service pamphlets. The quality of those arguments offered is equal to those offering them.

A better source showing that most Western lands were auctioned or sold, and the Homesteading through "proving" was a minor aspect in the settling of the West, and mostly a failure, would be Paul Wallace Gates, “The Homestead Law in an Incongruous Land System," The American Historical Review (July, 1936), p.  662-681.

Gates was the "dean" of American historians on homesteading, having published, among other extensive works, The Illinois Central Railroad and It's Colonization Work (1934) , Fifty Million Acres (1954), Landlord and Tenants on the Prairie Frontier (1973).

Aside from the general economic unliklihood of a homesteader going five long years without a credit source in order to get his "free" land, you will quickly see that the "Blysard -- LC --Diehl"  school of history is unaccredited through a more general lack of competence on the subject matter. Not that that ever stops them ...

An excerpt from "The Homestead Law ...":

"It was not entirely necessary, however, for speculators to resort to these illegal and fraudulent means of acquiring land since Congress proceeded to aid their schemes by enacting a series of laws which went far toward vitiating the principle of land for the landless.  By continuing after 1862 the policy of granting land to railroads to encourage their construction, Congress from the outset struck a severe blow at the principle of free homesteads.  In the eight years after the passage of the Homestead Law five times as much land was granted to railroads as had been given in the twelve preceding years.  Such imperial generosity was at the expense of future homesteaders who must purchase the land.  As it was necessary to withdraw all lands from entry in the regions through which such roads were projected to prevent speculators from anticipating the railroads in making selections of land, and as the routes were rarely definitely established when the grants were made, more than double this amount of land was withdrawn from entry and remainded unavailable for settlement for a long period of years.

"The railroads were, of course, built through undeveloped regions and, other things being equal, routes were selected which would ensure to the companies the largest among of what was then considered to be the best agricultural land.  When the alternate government sections were finally restored to market, settlers were frequently outbid for them by speculators, Moreover, the provision in the Homestead Law which confined the homesteader to eighty acres within the limits of a railroad grant was sufficient to send many homeseekers father afield.  On the railroad sections, of course, no free homesteading was permitted and thus the prospective settler found it necessary to go far from transportation facilities in order to take advantage of the government’s bounty."

[MichaelSol]

     1910?

That was the golden age of Homesteading and presumably is what induced people to farm in Montana in the first place, although I am not sure why Jay Eaton decided to make this yet another "Montana" thread. Homesteading was a far more general phenomenon, and less successful  in many places.

Had the numbers been reversed, say, 26 bushels in Iowa, and 12 in Montana, would we be having this conversation? Would people have left their farms in Minnesota or Kansas and moved West?

[edblysard]

The only year he could find the numbers that support his position.

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.

This is just bizarre.

Here are the production numbers 1910, from  the United States Department of Agriculture, Yearbook of Agriculture, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1911, p.532.

State                        Average Bushel Production
        North Dakota            12.1
        South Dakota            12.1
        Nebraska                  17.5
        Kansas                      14.0
        Wisconsin                  16.6
        Minnesota                  13.0
        Iowa                          14.0
        Montana                     26.3

The soil is among the richest in the country, and produces the highest protein content wheat. It is specifically the wheat preferred by Japanese and Korean purchasers. Relative to the export port and destination, Montana wheat is the most advantageously situated of nearly all grain products.

Montana wheat farmers get nothing in federal subsidies compared to Texas cotton farmers at $230 an acre.

Not that it matters, because facts don't matter to the gentlemen involved.

     1910?

[MichaelSol]

The only year he could find the numbers that support his position.

And what year what you like?

Year 2005.

Top four wheat producing states in the United States:

Economic Productivity per acre (all types of wheat)

1. North Dakota  $122
2. Kansas $132
3. Montana   $151
4. Oklahoma  $107

If you read Jay Eaton above, you would not know this. You might think the opposite; that Montana was the least productive, because of the "poor" soil and the "iffy" climate.

You would not guess that it is the most economically productive of the top four wheat producing states. He intended for you to believe the opposite.

There is this odd penchant for just inventing "facts" about Montana [read: Homesteaders, Staggers Act, Transcontinental Railroads ... you name it] on these forums. Jay's usually a pretty straight-up guy. What causes someone like that to flush his credibility down the toilet with these bizarre recitations that are simply not based in reality?

Oh yes, Jay was right on one thing, the climate is "iffy" --  2005 was a drought year in Montana.

[n012944]

Oh yes, Jay was right on one thing, the climate is "iffy" --  2005 was a drought year in Montana.

 

Really?  Is that why in 2005 Montana had the largest wheat harvest in the last 5 years?

http://wbc.agr.mt.gov/Buyers_Processors/Production_reports/topwheat_states.pdf

 

Bert

[MichaelSol]

Oh yes, Jay was right on one thing, the climate is "iffy" --  2005 was a drought year in Montana.

Really?  Is that why in 2005 Montana had the largest wheat harvest in the last 5 years?

http://wbc.agr.mt.gov/Buyers_Processors/Production_reports/topwheat_states.pdf

Bert

As a matter of fact, yes.

Growers shifted to winter wheat from spring wheat.  Even at that, for durum wheat,

"Average yields fell from 33 bushels an acre a year ago to 28 bushels an acre, according to the [USDA], which cited wind, heat and lack of moisture among the reasons."

"Given last fall's seeding conditions, many farmers opted to put in winter wheat instead of waiting to plant spring wheat, he said," and planted more acreage of it, leading to an overall higher wheat crop.

Becky Bohrer, Associated Press, September 30, 2005.

Winter was harvested on 2,100,000 acres, compared to an average of roughly 1,200,000 acres for the preceding 5 years. Spring fell from an average of roughly 3,300,000 acres to 2,550,000 acres.

Winter wheat yields were at 45 bu/acre, but only brought $3.51 per bushel. Spring wheat yielded 32 bu/acre, but brought $3.80. Spring wheat usually brings more than winter, so the shift to winter brought an economic penalty of sorts. Durum, which got killed by the drought, generally brings between $3.80 and $4.50/bu.

The crop increased substantially, the economic value per bushel declined. The Montana figures represented in my prior post, on a per acre basis, represented the effects of lower prices as a result of the switch to winter wheat from higher priced durum and spring.

Yes, the economic return was lower as a result of drought effects.

Notwithstanding drought conditions, Montana still yielded a greater economic return per acre that the other top three states. It is just terrible how poor the soils are and how an iffy climate conspired to make it all uneconomical, no matter what....
 

[jeaton]

My views on farming conditions in Montana were partly based on the anecdotal information in my post, but I had previously looked at wheat yields for more recent years.

From USDA/NASS reports.

Four year average yield per acre, all wheat, 2002 through 2005.

• North Dakota                   34.6
• South Dakota                   39.1
• Nebraska                         38.8
• Kansas                             39.5
• Wisconsin                        60.1
• Minnesota                        46.9
• Iowa                                 54.8
• Montana                           30.5

In 2002, 03 and 04 Montana had the lowest yield of all the states on the list and in 2005 was second from last with 36.8 bushels per acre to North Dakota's 34.4.

If I had to, I'd still rather farm somewhere else.

 

[Datafever]

You can't go by just the bushels per acre yield.  You have to look at the quality of the wheat that is grown too.  Montana and North Dakota may not have the highest yields, but the high quality wheat brings in top dollar.

[MichaelSol]

My views on farming conditions in Montana were partly based on the anecdotal information in my post, but I had previously looked at wheat yields for more recent years.

From USDA/NASS reports.

Four year average yield per acre, all wheat, 2002 through 2005.

• North Dakota                   34.6
• South Dakota                   39.1
• Nebraska                         38.8
• Kansas                             39.5
• Wisconsin                        60.1
• Minnesota                        46.9
• Iowa                                 54.8
• Montana                           30.5

In 2002, 03 and 04 Montana had the lowest yield of all the states on the list and in 2005 was second from last with 36.8 bushels per acre to North Dakota's 34.4.

If I had to, I'd still rather farm somewhere else.

 

You're not getting it.

Price -- the value the buyer pays for the product -- is the key. Montana wheat commands a higher price per bushel because of the nature of the soil and climate.

You would rather farm elsewhere, and earn less per acre?

Whew!

You are not looking at price.

From AgLink, Spring, 2001:

Montana wheats ranked best by buyers

A recent report of a 1999 international study ranked wheat grown by Montana farmers better than any others tested. The Overseas Varietal Analysis Project, organized by U.S. Wheat Associates, asked commercial buyers from Asian countries to assess eight hard red spring wheats and nine hard red winter wheats. Buyers in the test made whatever products they normally would from the wheat, including noodles, steam bread or loaves of bread.

“McNeal appears to be the variety that is preferred, most probably because of its mixing properties coupled with a high (water) absorption,” said the summary of the spring wheat project written by scientists at North Dakota State University.

[MichaelSol]

I am simply amazed that allegedly experienced people do not look at price. Is revenue per acre different than production of bushels per acre? Absolutely. Jay wishes to produce more bushels, not earn more revenue.

To me, "Bizarre".

Revenue per acre:

2001

1. North Dakota  $90

2. Kansas  $108

3. Montana  $126

4. Oklahoma  $90

5. South Dakota $105

2002

1. North Dakota  $104

2. Kansas  $113

3. Montana  $141

4. Oklahoma  $94

5. South Dakota $101

2003

1. North Dakota  $135

2. Kansas  $151

3. Montana  $165

4. Oklahoma  $129

5. South Dakota $146

2004

1. North Dakota  $134

2. Kansas  $120

3. Montana  $156

4. Oklahoma  $116

5. South Dakota $155

2005

1. North Dakota  $122

2. Kansas  $132

3. Montana  $151

4. Oklahoma  $107

5. South Dakota $150

Five year average revenue return, per acre, all wheat

1. North Dakota  $117

2. Kansas  $125

3. Montana  $148

4. Oklahoma  $107

5. South Dakota $131

If you want to add Nebraska, a pretty good size wheat grower, the five year average per acre is $123, compared to Montana's $148.

Price per bushel, 2001

1. North Dakota  $2.79

2. Kansas  $2.69

3. Montana  $3.14

4. Oklahoma  $2.72

5. South Dakota $2.78

2002

1. North Dakota  $3.80

2. Kansas  $3.41

3. Montana  $4.04

4. Oklahoma  $3.37

5. South Dakota $3.81

etc.

Revenue per acre, 2001-2005

US Average

$112

$125

$150

$147

$143

Montana

$126

$141

$165

$156

$151

This is because revenue is a function of price, not just production.

This followed a general historical trend. Milwaukee Road estimated that a settler in North Dakota was worth $250 in new traffic to the Railroad, annually, but a settler in Montana was worth $350 annually. [ Railway Age Magazine, May 30, 1925, 78:1330]. Notwithstanding that it was drier, it was more productive, oddly enough, apparently due to poor soils and a poor climate according to some astute commentators.

Yet, someone will say this:

There is no rational free market economic justification for growing crops on this land. 

How can anyone talk about free market justifications, but not take into account "price"?

 

[jeaton]

Very interesting.  I have been under the impression that Montana wheat farmers were being financially devasted by the railroad transportation rates.  Looks to me like growers in other locations would like your problems.

[MichaelSol]

And so the adoption or development of superior varieties of red wheat is exclusively within the state of Montana?

No, the price per bushel is the average cost over all varieties. Durum and winter have nothing to do with a superior variety of spring, or vice versa, and which anybody can buy. And it surely had nothing to do with those 1910 figures, does it?

Where it is grown -- precip, humidity, soil type, wheat variety -- affects milling qualities. Same variety different places, different milling qualities. Much like coal -- different source, different qualities.

I think I'll stick with higher yield for the long run.

This is the reducto ad absurdum of production vs. revenue. Of course you would, even if it resulted in lower revenues, because this is a Trains forum where rational economics is not the controlling factor.

 

[jeaton]

Oh, I thought those numbers on receipts per acre were to the farmer.  After all, this is a discussion on the economics of growing wheat in Montana vs. other areas.  If those numbers don't show money to the farmer, what is the relavance?

[Limitedclear]

I might suggest that anyone interested in the Homestead Act and its implications, go to a source other than "Ed" and LC's online Park Service pamphlets. The quality of those arguments offered is equal to those offering them.

A better source showing that most Western lands were auctioned or sold, and the Homesteading through "proving" was a minor aspect in the settling of the West, and mostly a failure, would be Paul Wallace Gates, “The Homestead Law in an Incongruous Land System," The American Historical Review (July, 1936), p.  662-681.

Gates was the "dean" of American historians on homesteading, having published, among other extensive works, The Illinois Central Railroad and It's Colonization Work (1934) , Fifty Million Acres (1954), Landlord and Tenants on the Prairie Frontier (1973).

Aside from the general economic unliklihood of a homesteader going five long years without a credit source in order to get his "free" land, you will quickly see that the "Blysard -- LC --Diehl"  school of history is unaccredited through a more general lack of competence on the subject matter. Not that that ever stops them ...

An excerpt from "The Homestead Law ...":

"It was not entirely necessary, however, for speculators to resort to these illegal and fraudulent means of acquiring land since Congress proceeded to aid their schemes by enacting a series of laws which went far toward vitiating the principle of land for the landless.  By continuing after 1862 the policy of granting land to railroads to encourage their construction, Congress from the outset struck a severe blow at the principle of free homesteads.  In the eight years after the passage of the Homestead Law five times as much land was granted to railroads as had been given in the twelve preceding years.  Such imperial generosity was at the expense of future homesteaders who must purchase the land.  As it was necessary to withdraw all lands from entry in the regions through which such roads were projected to prevent speculators from anticipating the railroads in making selections of land, and as the routes were rarely definitely established when the grants were made, more than double this amount of land was withdrawn from entry and remainded unavailable for settlement for a long period of years.

"The railroads were, of course, built through undeveloped regions and, other things being equal, routes were selected which would ensure to the companies the largest among of what was then considered to be the best agricultural land.  When the alternate government sections were finally restored to market, settlers were frequently outbid for them by speculators, Moreover, the provision in the Homestead Law which confined the homesteader to eighty acres within the limits of a railroad grant was sufficient to send many homeseekers father afield.  On the railroad sections, of course, no free homesteading was permitted and thus the prospective settler found it necessary to go far from transportation facilities in order to take advantage of the government’s bounty."

It's easy to criticize sources for no good reason. You haven't told me that any of the quotes I have presented are inaccurate statements of the statute or of the authorities. You only disagree with my position as to the facts, without offering any substantial argument in your favor Mikey. So, as usual you have no contrary law, no contrary facts and are once again just pounding on the table. Why don't you just spare us the blather...

LC

[MichaelSol]

Oh, I thought those numbers on receipts per acre were to the farmer.  After all, this is a discussion on the economics of growing wheat in Montana vs. other areas.  If those numbers don't show money to the farmer, what is the relavance?

Jeaton:

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.

What is your point?

[MichaelSol]

It's easy to criticize sources for no good reason.

You would know.

 You haven't told me that any of the quotes I have presented are inaccurate statements of the statute or of the authorities.

The "authorities"? Ed Blysard? Ha!

 You only disagree with my position as to the facts, without offering any substantial argument in your favor Mikey. So, as usual you have no contrary law, no contrary facts and are once again just pounding on the table. Why don't you just spare us the blather..

Two points: detailed examination of a homesteaded county that shows homestead land was ultimately purchased, rather than "proven" and scholarly study of the larger era that shows that the railroads, by and large, vitiated any positive effects that the Homestead Act might have achieved by the terms of their own grants, and by the actual results of homesteading -- which showed little actual "proved" homesteading in good agricultural areas -- as well as a profoundly high failure rate where they did establish -- no doubt due to the lower quality of the land and the lack of credit.

Don't know what you "proved" Curly Joe.

 

[Anonymous]

Many pages ago I made a comment in passing about price support to farmers.  Immediately afterwards, someone (Futuremodal) seized on that comment, totally ignoring the main point of my post (which was regulation), and since then we've had 10 or so pages of talk about homesteading (yawn) and now Montana wheat (very big yawn).
So I would like to apologize to everyone for mentioning the word "farmer" which started this off-topic discussion, and I promise never to mention farms, farming, wheat, or farm subsidies ever again on this Trains.com forum!!! 

[TimChgo9]

Okay, and we will hold you to it..... 

While we are at it don't mention: DM&E, "Open Access", Global Warming, or "Piggy back vs Container" either, and I think we will be okay.... 

[Limitedclear]

Okay, and we will hold you to it..... 

While we are at it don't mention: DM&E, "Open Access", Global Warming, or "Piggy back vs Container" either, and I think we will be okay.... 

Better add "subsidy" and "paper barrier" to the list...lol...

LC

[Limitedclear]

It's easy to criticize sources for no good reason.

You would know.

 You haven't told me that any of the quotes I have presented are inaccurate statements of the statute or of the authorities.

The "authorities"? Ed Blysard? Ha!

 You only disagree with my position as to the facts, without offering any substantial argument in your favor Mikey. So, as usual you have no contrary law, no contrary facts and are once again just pounding on the table. Why don't you just spare us the blather..

Two points: detailed examination of a homesteaded county that shows homestead land was ultimately purchased, rather than "proven" and scholarly study of the larger era that shows that the railroads, by and large, vitiated any positive effects that the Homestead Act might have achieved by the terms of their own grants, and by the actual results of homesteading -- which showed little actual "proved" homesteading in good agricultural areas -- as well as a profoundly high failure rate where they did establish -- no doubt due to the lower quality of the land and the lack of credit.

Don't know what you "proved" Curly Joe.

 

Haven't seen you quoting too many REAL authorities lately beyond your "Big Library" Mr. Knowitall...

Of course you and your interestingly private studies of a couple of counties in the boonies proves you an expert (NOT!). And don't get me started on your alleged qualifications that change with the direction of the breeze...

FOFLMAO...

You never prove anything. Of course on your JOP bench, I'm sure nobody proved anything either...

LOL...

LC

 

[MichaelSol]

Haven't seen you quoting too many REAL authorities lately beyond your "Big Library" Mr. Knowitall...

Of course you and your interestingly private studies of a couple of counties in the boonies proves you an expert (NOT!). And don't get me started on your alleged qualifications that change with the direction of the breeze...

FOFLMAO...

You never prove anything. Of course on your JOP bench, I'm sure nobody proved anything either...

LOL...

LC

NOT!

FOFLMAO

LOL

LC

SOP ... the usual. The nice thing about my "alleged qualifications" anybody can look me up at any time. They can't do that with a 14 year old hiding behind a fake name can they?

Anybody with your claimed credentials would do a lot better than to cite Ed Blysard and a Park Service on-line pamphlet in support of their "proposition" about a historical period of which a great deal of actual scholarly work has been published. That's why I happen to think your claimed credentials are bogus, and also why you hide behind a fake name  -- nothing you write, and the way you write, rings with any authenticity.

Nearly everyone I have known with the backgrounds you claim would have better things to do than to troll up and down internet forums just to name call and continally spout FOFLMAO and LOL like they are the only forms of communication you learned, or are learning, in high school.

 

[Limitedclear]

Haven't seen you quoting too many REAL authorities lately beyond your "Big Library" Mr. Knowitall...

Of course you and your interestingly private studies of a couple of counties in the boonies proves you an expert (NOT!). And don't get me started on your alleged qualifications that change with the direction of the breeze...

FOFLMAO...

You never prove anything. Of course on your JOP bench, I'm sure nobody proved anything either...

LOL...

LC

NOT!

FOFLMAO

LOL

LC

SOP ... the usual. The nice thing about my "alleged qualifications" anybody can look me up at any time. They can't do that with a 14 year old hiding behind a fake name can they?

Anybody with your claimed credentials would do a lot better than to cite Ed Blysard and a Park Service on-line pamphlet in support of their "proposition" about a historical period of which a great deal of actual scholarly work has been published. That's why I happen to think your claimed credentials are bogus, and also why you hide behind a fake name  -- nothing you write, and the way you write, rings with any authenticity.

Nearly everyone I have known with the backgrounds you claim would have better things to do than to troll up and down internet forums just to name call and continally spout FOFLMAO and LOL like they are the only forms of communication you learned, or are learning, in high school.

 

You're right Mikey. Spending time dealing with your worthless gab is a complete waste of my time. I'm not wasting my time fencing with you about Homesteading anymore. I'm well satisfied with the conclusions I have reached. I'm equally satisfied that you will argue endlessly about how you are correct without citation to any meaningful authority. As far as your qualifications, I'm not wasting my time although I did enjoy reading about that appeal to the Montana Supreme Court your partner did for you...LOL...

Have a lovely day...

LC