Talk:Homestead Acts/Archive 1

Modern-day homesteading in Kansas
I've heard that something similar to the Homestead Act is being conducted now (as of earlllling to live in certain towns, they can have land and a house to put on it. Anybody know what I'm talking about? Rhymeless 18:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Homestead Act was repealed by Congress. It is no longer active. See


 * Yes, the original homestead act was repealed. However there has been discussion of instituting some sort o Insert non-formatted text here f new version to encourage people to move to sparsely populated areas that have been losing population recently. I have not heard whether any such proposals have been implemented. older ≠ wiser 12:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About a dozen communities in Kansas are offering incentives to new residents including free lots to reverse recent population drains. Most lots are less than an acre in size. Atwood, McDonald, Marquette, Minneapolis, Kanopolis, Holyrood, Plainville, Wilson, and Ellsworth County are among those offering such deals. [] Great Scott 10:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More info on free land in Kansas: KansasFreeLand.com   16 Mar 2005

Andrew Johnson
Why exactly was Andrew Johnson known as "Father of the Homestead Act"?--Pharos 15:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Becuase he pushed for its passage while in Congress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.187.151.81 (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction
This article seems to contradict itself. In one paragraph "Usually, the land that was available [through the Homestead Act] was in too poor a shape to farm on", while in another, "Homestead tracts were often excellent farmland and provided subsistence and a steady income. Homestead farmers in time became the agricultural producers to the nation as a whole".

Obviously one is false, but it's not something I know enough about to determine...

NPOV dispute
Added the NPOV tag because the article hardly acknowledges the impact the Homesteading Act had on Native Americans. As homesteading was also allowed on reservation land and especially the Plains Indians had little experience farming, the Settlers often took the best land, leaving the indigenous population with scraps to work on and depriving them of the little land that was alotted to them by the treaties.


 * In the "legacy" section is a paragraph that appears to be gratuitously anti-settler. For one thing, most of the native tribes had already been moved off of their historical lands before the homestead act came into being.


 * True, but I wasn't talking about historical land. Even the Reservations were opened to Homesteading, after they were given specifically to the Native Americans in the Treaties (which can, and imo should be interpreted as binding contracts).
 * Furthermore it is pretty wishy-washy about who is to blame (the Government of that time, if you ask me), and not "gratuitously anti-settler". It just states that "primarily" white settlers prospered from the Act. Who else prospered after the Act? Black settlers?
 * I well imagine that a few scattered Indians themselves probably tried invoking the act by settling... of course, their odds probably weren't much better than anyone else's. Sweetfreek 21:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Reservations (i.e. "Indian Trust Territories") were not available for homesteading. It gets complicated though if the homesteader began occupancy prior to the establishment of the reservation.  Under federal law, a reservation and a homestead are both withdrawls from the public domain - the earliest one is the only valid one in the eyes of the courts.  Many reservations were established before they were surveyed, and after they were established often settlers came forward with a prior homestead claim (undoubtably many of these claims were fradulent).  If a federal court found that the homestead was established prior to the reservation, then the land wasn't in the public domain and therefore the Feds couldn't use it for a reservation.


 * Another issue that crops up is that a reservation is land that is held in trust for an indian tribe by the federal government, however until recently it's been very difficult for tribes to bring suit for breach of trust. Often when there was a dispute over reservation land the federal government would be on both sides - say Bureau of Indian Affairs vs. Bureau of Reclaimation which is problematic to say the least.  But that's out of the scope of this article.  Toiyabe 00:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 66.167.139.201 23:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC):Converted into a section-specific NPOV dispute.

Fraud and corporate use
66.167.139.201 23:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC): I labeled this section as of questionable accuracy because of its lack of examples. History is certainly filled with examples of people taking advantage of legislation for an unintended purpose, but specifics are needed in order to make this section informative.


 * Added some specifics.Toiyabe 00:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"Derivations"

 * "[...] similar acts, usually termed the Selection Acts were passed in the various Australian colonies in the 1860s, beginning in 1861 in New South Wales."

People copied an 1862 act in 1861? Amazing... -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 11:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

veterans preference
If a Civil War veteran was given preference, wouldn't a main reason for having this land grant be to entice men to enlist in the Army? Was that Lincoln's intention. The subject is not mentioned in this article but seems inportant. --cda 14:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * the goal was to prevent hurting men who were serving in the army during the war. (otherwise the soldiers would complain that civilians had a chance to homestead and they did not.) Rjensen 16:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"in cahoots"
Near the end of the article the phrase "in cahoots" is used. Is this in keeping with a formal tone? or should it be changed to "collaborated"

"In practice, many of these witnesses were bribed or otherwise in cahoots with the claimant."

Last claim
The last claim section describes it as filed in 1979 and granted in 1988, and then signed by President Lincoln.

Having lived through the 1980s, I confess I don't recall President Lincoln being in office or in any state to sign anything at that point.

Is this statement placed in the wrong section perhaps? It would make more sense under "Reason for the Homestead act."

Results
Is this really necessary: The leading historian Paul Gates has concluded, "their noble purpose and the great part they played in enabling nearly a million and half people to acquire farm land, much of which developed into farm homes, far outweigh the misuse to which they were put."

It just seems pointless, and frankly a nod to Paul Gates.

--Oddperson 04:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * when leading historians come to a conclusion Wiki reports it. Rjensen 05:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Notice, it looks pretty much exactly like the rest :) (My Remark). --Oddperson 04:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also notice that it is just ONE historian, not many, not a couple, not even a few, JUST ONE.

This page has been vandalized, can someone fix it?

Public Uses
"The Homestead Act is used as the ruse to allow The Amazing Screw-On Head to investigate paranormal activities west of the Mississippi River without arousing Confederate suspicion." This has obviously been vandalized. What needs to be done to fix this? I'm new to editing. Msdeangelo (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Other uses
I came here looking for the Massachusetts Homestead Act, which protects your home against unsecured creditors up to a half million dollars. See. I would add this to the article, but I'm not sure how many states do this, so I'm not sure what to put... Anybody have any suggestions? Thanks, CSZero (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In case you still care, that would go in the page on Homestead Exemption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.237.174 (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Florida
People homesteaded Florida under the Homestead Act of 1862. Some Homestead Certificates are online at the Orange County Comptroller's Office, www.occompt.com. Search for the United States as the grantor. Click on items in the list and then click "view" to the pdf of the original document. The Homestead certificate dates concentrate on the late 1870s early 1880s. --Registering a free (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

February 31..
does not exist. Someone care to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.77.234 (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Native Americans?
Am I missing something obvious here? Surely the land was owned, inasmuch as any land is 'owned', by the people who had lived upon it for thousands of years. Yet there is not a single mention of this in the article. A somewhat blinkered and biased view of history, it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.209.198 (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Technically, it probably wasn't legally owned (in US law) by the Natives by the time it was handed out for homesteading. (OTOH, have there been irredentist court suits by Native tribes over land that was in the homestead zone?)  But certainly it should be mentioned that the land was obtained via treaties with the Natives under military pressure by the US gov't.  (Is there a Wikipedia page that gives a good overview of this subject?)  DWorley (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * the Indians sold their lands to the US government for annual subsidies (which they still receive) & reservation lands (where many still live). Rjensen (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment -- This is one of the most blatantly self-serving and appallingly dishonest Wikipedia articles I have ever seen. The fact that the body of topic does not mention Native Americans AT ALL -- as if this continent was completely devoid of human life and ripe for colonization by Europeans -- is not only intellectually unjustifiable, but it is also morally wrong. Additionally, the author compounds their incredibly racist rationale for our abuse of these people by claiming that Native Americans "technically.. probably.. " didn't "legally" own their land (by US law)". This is akin to saying if the Russians invaded and took over our country, we never held title to our homes because the deeds weren't valid Russian legal documents.

If the author of the article needs information on the processes we used to deprive Native Americans of their lands, there are many, many books available on the subject, including "A Century of Dishonor" by Helen Hunt Jackson (first published in 1881), "American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World" by David E. Stannard (which includes some of what happened in the US), and "The Destruction of the California Indians" by Robert F. Heizer. Additionally, the author should research relationship between the Great Sioux Uprising of 1862 and the Homestead Act of 1862. If they did, I think he or she might learn something.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3712:CC0:3576:F82D:DCBD:BD6D (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

1. Article Chosen: Homestead Acts

2. My Draft: l. One Step Forward ! ! The Homestead Act of 1862 was a pivotal moment in the lives of american people who were categorized as minorities during this era. A homestead meant to give an applicant ownership of land at little or no cost. Prior to this, slavery and cruel acts of discrimination were plaguing our society with an unstoppable force. Many laws and regulations had to be implemented over time in order to straighten out the corrupt social structure that was taking place.This article informs the viewer on facts mostly pertaining to the legal aspects of what the Homestead Act essential carried out. Inequalities towards women and p.o.c. made life very difficult to manage. It would be great to see more information relating to the history of women's rights on land ownership before the implementation of these acts and what our society had to do in order to achieve these changes. It is important to grasp these ideas due to the roles it can play in modern society. I begin to ask questions such as, why couldn’t women and/or slaves own land prior to this? What set them apart from anyone else? Also, what are the implications of a widowed women in the 1800’s? I believe that if equalization of human right is not expressed evenly then there will always be some form of tension, within society. The ownership of land is what allows humans to survive. Without land their is no food, water, or shelter to call your home. Slavery and forms of discrimination were stripping people of these essentials to living a comfortable and healthy life. Maybe discuss big government and their roles in idea of slavery, How gender and sex types play huge factors in rights of equality, and what were the deciding factors of allowing slavery to exist? Understanding our history, if used correctly, can help us create a better tomorrow.

ll. Wikipedian ! ! It is important to understand the social standards of this time. America was experiencing high amounts of discrimination. In the end we as a country over came a lot of the racist issues. Not to say it is completely extinct but we can look at how they over came it back then and implement the same thought processes into todays world. I chose to implement this due to the positive awareness it has on society.

lll. WGS Scholar Viewpoint ! Raising awareness on how to overcome racial inequalities is important if we want to positively evolve as an America society. Looking back on how things used to be should give hope for a brighter future. The more people are exposed to the true realities on how women and African Americans were treated in the 1800’s may encourage people to not act with discriminations against minority groups.

3. Reagle, Joseph, and Lauren Rhue. "Gender Bias in Wikipedia and Britannica." ! Http://!ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/777/631. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Oct. ! 2014.

4. Discuss: Wikipedia and ES/WGS ! Sharing information with others plays a huge role in how our society will continue to evolve. This is why, sites like wikipedia can be useful tools that help increase the rate in which people gain this information. It is crucial that we help spread awareness on major historical facts pertaining to people being discriminated against based off their gender, sex, or race. Minority groups have always been oppressed to a certain degree. Usually this is not due to hereditary traits but because of the social implications or stereotypes that come along with them. “Locating the causes of inequality in social rather than genetic structure is liberating because it is much easier to change society than genes” (p. 311). If we want to put an end to this we need to supply the common people with the knowledge of what is happening or has happened here, at a social level. We don't need to change our physical aspect of the human body. It would be more productive to change our mental judgement. This can be accomplished through social guidance of proper information. Roberts, Dorothy (2011-06-14). Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big ! Business Re-create Race in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 311-312). New Press, ! The. Kindle Edition.

5. Discuss: Wikipedia and I ! It is crucial that we spread the word on current racial inequalities that exist in modern day. By analyzing wikipedia for mistakes or lack of information, we can see what needs to be added in order to inform people at a social level. This will teach people about how to make a civilized judgments on what is presented to them. The more non biased the information is the less we will be prone to discrimination in society. Wikipedia promotes non biased active throughout all the articles on the site. Any group of people trying to promote knowledge and learning that will encourage the public to thrive in a positive direction has my respect.

African Americans and Freemen From 1862-1868
This article is unclear about whether freemen were allowed to claim homestead plots prior to the 14th Amendment. The passage on the Homestead Act of 1862 states that freemen (which, after the Gettysburg Address, included all former slaves in the occupied South) could claim plots as citizens, but the section on Homesteading Requirements says that former slaves were only allowed to participate after 1868, when the 14th Amendment was passed. In addition, the page for the Southern Homestead Act of 1866 clearly states that the law was meant for sharecroppers and recently freed slaves, as does the subsection for that law in this article. The Library of Congress page for the Homestead Act of 1862 does not mention freemen at all, which would seem to point to their inclusion. It's possible (likely, even) that there were numerous bureaucratic barriers to black participation, which is certainly worth mentioning, but unless the 14th Amendment rectified this problem, it does not seem relevant to this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.206.186 (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added Forty_acres_and_a_mule to the 'See Also' section. I don't know enough about the history or law to say if there should be a full section here, but the concept is intuitively so similar that there should be a link.Nickpheas (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The other side of the coin
Thousands of people moving to the great plains also meant thousands of people (native americans) moving off the land (whether by choice or by force), yet not a single word is devoted to this in this article. Please change this, and/or reference articles that do talk about this. 65.31.191.157 (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * that rarely happened. The Indians there were not farming land they were roaming over thousands of square miles hunting buffalo. Settlers got 160 acres or about 400 families per 100 square miles. Rjensen (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)