CDZ Homestead Acts, how to think about them?

[Picaro]

It was an era of great socialism for the common man and the rich ones....

All those farmers who got 160 acres cheaply, yes, that's how Andrew Carnegie and JP Morgan became so rich

Both got rich plundering publicly subsidized railroads, so yes, they benefited from the Homestead Act scam as well, Carnegie by selling rails to over-extended railroad companies and Morgan by loading them down with massive debts. Carnegie got rich first in railroading, as a secretary to Tom Scott of the Pennsylvania Railroad. His first 'investments' were in the stocks of car building companies that over-charged the railroad in sweet-heart deals put together by the company's executives, like his boss. Most executives didn't make their big money by running the company, they made it by selling the company a lot of over-priced supplies.

WTF? Railroads were build under the homestead act?

Gotcha Karl. You don't know what you're talking about. The Homestead Act gave farmers 160 acres for practically nothing. The rest you're just pulling out of your ass.

Spare us the idiotic commentaries; try reading a book once in while. You 're just proving your ignorance here, as usual.

Maybe you could provide some links for your wild claims then.

Why, when I can just laugh at you posting stupid ignorant crap? You think your dumbass opinion matters or something? Can't figure out how to use search engines? Never read a book?

 

[kaz]

...the military was not used just for the Homestead Acts to fight NAs...they were fighting the NAs since before the Revolution
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1187.html
is your casualty list post 1862?

It's yea another one of the 'progressives'' cognitively dissonant narratives, blathering on and on about how 'great' Lincoln' and the war was, while then having to turn around and snivel about the consequences of it, like his generals going after the Indians. They went after them during the war as well, Pope in Minnesota, for instance. The butchers were turned loose in the West to pursue corporate interests there as well. 'Progressives' always back the establishment, always have and always will, just as they do today, while trying to BS everybody into thinking they're 'for the little guy n stuff'. They openly murder the 'little people' at every opportunity they can do so.

I think your socks are creating a corporation. You should burn them so your underwear doesn't get any ideas

 

[kaz]

All those farmers who got 160 acres cheaply, yes, that's how Andrew Carnegie and JP Morgan became so rich

Both got rich plundering publicly subsidized railroads, so yes, they benefited from the Homestead Act scam as well, Carnegie by selling rails to over-extended railroad companies and Morgan by loading them down with massive debts. Carnegie got rich first in railroading, as a secretary to Tom Scott of the Pennsylvania Railroad. His first 'investments' were in the stocks of car building companies that over-charged the railroad in sweet-heart deals put together by the company's executives, like his boss. Most executives didn't make their big money by running the company, they made it by selling the company a lot of over-priced supplies.

WTF? Railroads were build under the homestead act?

Gotcha Karl. You don't know what you're talking about. The Homestead Act gave farmers 160 acres for practically nothing. The rest you're just pulling out of your ass.

Spare us the idiotic commentaries; try reading a book once in while. You 're just proving your ignorance here, as usual.

Maybe you could provide some links for your wild claims then.

Why, when I can just laugh at you posting stupid ignorant crap? You think your dumbass opinion matters or something? Can't figure out how to use search engines? Never read a book?

Well Comrade, the Homestead act had nothing to do with railroads and nowhere in your Marxist anti-capitalist rant did you tie it to railroads.

There were two major drivers for the Homestead act. First, that was a way to grow the country. We were competing with Spain, France and other countries for land, and to claim it we needed people there. The Homestead act was a way to get them out there.

The other thing was that we were getting a constant stream of immigration from Europe and we needed someplace productive for those people to go. Idle hands are the devils's workshop. It's like Mexico now. The US is a steam valve. The wall would be a massive issue in Mexico.

The railroads were indirectly part of that in that as people moved west, railroads took them there faster. But the rest of your conspiracy theory is a delusion and it sure wasn't the government's job to prevent anyone from building railroads because there was a need for them and gasp, it made people rich. Shudder ...

 

[Picaro]

lol more idiotic rubbish. Keep entertaining us. Your massive waves of immigrants mostly starved and perished in epidemics right up into the early 20th century, dipshit. We even see major declines in the life expectancy and average heights of natives from 1820 on, right up to the end of the century. Natives lost an average of 15% off their heights due to malnutrition and falling standards of living and a 20% decrease in years off their life as well. Those of you who bother with the History Forum and actually read links already know the sources for that. Kaz here never will. They an also find and compare the stats of 'free labor' in the northern and southern states with the stats for slaves, for a fun time.

Fredrick Law Omstead's trip through the South can highlight a few eyewitness Fun Facts of real life in the South as a 'free white immigrant laborer' compared to a slave as well, for those who can handle real history without some fantasy narrative to make it fit the Burg Brat fantasies of today and academic fashion. there is a good reason southern slave owners constantly brought up the comparisons in their rebuttals of northern propaganda, after all.

 

[william the wie]

Slight difference of opinion. The primary result and probable purpose of the Homestead act was to make Lincoln's radical republicans rich off Credit Mobiliere and other kickback schemes.

 

[Picaro]

Slight difference of opinion. The primary result and probable purpose of the Homestead act was to make Lincoln's radical republicans rich off Credit Mobiliere and other kickback schemes.

Well yes; there were several different motivations depending on where your financial interests were; this was one of those points in history where a lot of interests coincided into a confluence of allies in the Grand Projects. I pointed out several assorted interest groups in my posts. The Acts served a lot of varied interests. They were occasionally modified over the years a swell, as new interests came along and older interests needed them tweaked later on, right up to the 1980's.

The Texas Pacific RR, or whoever owns their assets now, still owns half the mineral rights of some of my land to this day, and that includes the blanket royalties interests on the natural gas being pumped out of the ground now, for instance.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

In other words it was one heck of a big government project and when talking about the good ol days we should think of the 1800's as the century of big government.

To further refine this important acknowledgement, we could view the chart of "Big Government" as proceeding at a 45 degree angle upward from the moment the Constitution was signed to the present day (at least on the macro scale). If we were to call the 1800's the "century of big government" then we'd have to call the 1900's "the century of bigger government" and the 2000's "the century of even bigger government".

The trend could not be any clearer, and it stems from an inherent flaw in the fundamental notion that the Constitution is built upon - the inequality of rights. Government, to be government, must claim rights that others don't have (the right to tax at the very least, and to back up that right with coercive violence). Were a government to be merely an extension of the rights of the people, then it would be nothing unique or different at all; just a bunch of people standing in one place, perhaps, but with no particular jurisdiction for the rights they claim, as people inside or outside that area would have all the same rights regardless.

So if government must claim rights that others don't have, we should ask the question, "what are the only kinds of rights that people don't have?" And the answer must necessarily be "the right to do something wrong". Anything that a person does not have a right to do is clearly thought of as wrong, is it not? Try to think of any example that would refute this assertion... there are none. The reason why we "need" government is to launder immorality, justifying it by a series of meaningless rituals until it comes out clean on the other side.

This fundamental flaw is why even the minimalist Constitutional Libertarian position is doomed from the outset to always result in big government tyranny, every time, with no exceptions. There is no getting around it -- the core programming has a bug which will express - it's only a matter of time.

 

[kaz]

lol more idiotic rubbish. Keep entertaining us

"Us?" Who are all these people you speak for hanging on your every word? Are you in a lecture all filled with people cheering your every word?

I is a far more powerful word than "us." I means you have confidence and don't need your view to be validated by others

They an also find and compare the stats of 'free labor' in the northern and southern states with the stats for slaves, for a fun time

I didn't say that. When you think you're paraphrasing, you don't use quote marks. Note the name, quote marks.

Anyway, there's no point arguing the rhetoric of a Marxist

 

[harmonica]

...the military was not used just for the Homestead Acts to fight NAs...they were fighting the NAs since before the Revolution
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1187.html
is your casualty list post 1862?

It's yet another one of the 'progressives'' cognitively dissonant narratives, blathering on and on about how 'great' Lincoln' and the war was, while then having to turn around and snivel about the consequences of it, like his generals going after the Indians. They went after them during the war as well, Pope in Minnesota, for instance. The butchers were turned loose in the West to pursue corporate interests there as well. 'Progressives' always back the establishment, always have and always will, just as they do today, while trying to BS everybody into thinking they're 'for the little guy n stuff'. They openly murder the 'little people' at every opportunity they can do so.

In any case, the Sioux don't rate any kind of Pity Party regardless; they were big perpetrators of genocides and massacres themselves in their rise to prominence and seizing of territory. They merely got a small taste of what they dished out for centuries before Lincoln's mass murderers were turned loose on them. On the other hand, many small tribes only exist today because of Federal protections and destroying the Sioux's war making ability, tribes like the Osage for instance.

agree
the NAs displaced/decimated/warred on/TORTURED/stole land/etc of others long before the whites came
..the Iroquois big time

 

[Toronado3800]

...the military was not used just for the Homestead Acts to fight NAs...they were fighting the NAs since before the Revolution
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1187.html
is your casualty list post 1862?

In the bigger sense I will say the military was used to clear the Natives in preparation for the implementation of Manifest Destiny which was the Homestead Act's purpose. Now I sound a little rougher than most on it, but I will say if I was President in 1880 or anytime around there, I'm not sure I could or would have stopped the westward migration / genocide of the Natives, whichever you prefer. The problem may have driven me to the brink of madness as I THINK I would have been self aware enough to know what was going on.

My numbers are for the century as a whole. My verbiage is loose and conversational and I am guilty of lumping the whole Century from the settling of Ohio Westward as being part of the Homestead Act.

 

[harmonica]

...the military was not used just for the Homestead Acts to fight NAs...they were fighting the NAs since before the Revolution
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1187.html
is your casualty list post 1862?

In the bigger sense I will say the military was used to clear the Natives in preparation for the implementation of Manifest Destiny which was the Homestead Act's purpose. Now I sound a little rougher than most on it, but I will say if I was President in 1880 or anytime around there, I'm not sure I could or would have stopped the westward migration / genocide of the Natives, whichever you prefer. The problem may have driven me to the brink of madness as I THINK I would have been self aware enough to know what was going on.

My numbers are for the century as a whole. My verbiage is loose and conversational and I am guilty of lumping the whole Century from the settling of Ohio Westward as being part of the Homestead Act.

you are saying the problem ''may have driven you mad''..etc
are you thinking as a 21st person or a 19th century person?....
.for many in the 19th century:
..slavery was ''ok''
..the earth was not round
..genocide was not defined/''known''
..communication and education not advanced----creating and enabling ''problems'' of the 19th century
...a whole world of myths/falsehoods/beliefs/etc---so you would think like a 19th century man?
....a good example and not to go off topic was the way the Japanese-Americans were treated after the Pearl Harbor attack........sure--now!!! today!!---we say that was wrong---but back then ''most'' thought and agreed that it was the right thing to do

 

[Toronado3800]

...the military was not used just for the Homestead Acts to fight NAs...they were fighting the NAs since before the Revolution
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1187.html
is your casualty list post 1862?

In the bigger sense I will say the military was used to clear the Natives in preparation for the implementation of Manifest Destiny which was the Homestead Act's purpose. Now I sound a little rougher than most on it, but I will say if I was President in 1880 or anytime around there, I'm not sure I could or would have stopped the westward migration / genocide of the Natives, whichever you prefer. The problem may have driven me to the brink of madness as I THINK I would have been self aware enough to know what was going on.

My numbers are for the century as a whole. My verbiage is loose and conversational and I am guilty of lumping the whole Century from the settling of Ohio Westward as being part of the Homestead Act.

you are saying the problem ''may have driven you mad''..etc
are you thinking as a 21st person or a 19th century person?....
.for many in the 19th century:
..slavery was ''ok''
..the earth was not round
..genocide was not defined/''known''
..communication and education not advanced----creating and enabling ''problems'' of the 19th century
...a whole world of myths/falsehoods/beliefs/etc---so you would think like a 19th century man
....a good example and not to go off topic was the way the Japanese-Americans were treated after the Pearl Harbor attack........sure--now!!! today!!---we say that was wrong---but back then ''most'' thought and agreed that it was the right thing to do

I agree with the different point of views of the 19th century. I like to THINK I'm ahead of my time and would have been then also. But I'll qualify my statement with the "may" if that makes sense.

Heck, I'll go further.

Using WWII again.

Knowing how things turned out I'm not dead set I'd wish the U.S. to have stopped short of California. The Russians MIGHT have had the Germans but I dunno if I really would have wanted Stalin to be in that strong of a position.

 

[Picaro]

...the military was not used just for the Homestead Acts to fight NAs...they were fighting the NAs since before the Revolution
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1187.html
is your casualty list post 1862?

It's yet another one of the 'progressives'' cognitively dissonant narratives, blathering on and on about how 'great' Lincoln' and the war was, while then having to turn around and snivel about the consequences of it, like his generals going after the Indians. They went after them during the war as well, Pope in Minnesota, for instance. The butchers were turned loose in the West to pursue corporate interests there as well. 'Progressives' always back the establishment, always have and always will, just as they do today, while trying to BS everybody into thinking they're 'for the little guy n stuff'. They openly murder the 'little people' at every opportunity they can do so.

In any case, the Sioux don't rate any kind of Pity Party regardless; they were big perpetrators of genocides and massacres themselves in their rise to prominence and seizing of territory. They merely got a small taste of what they dished out for centuries before Lincoln's mass murderers were turned loose on them. On the other hand, many small tribes only exist today because of Federal protections and destroying the Sioux's war making ability, tribes like the Osage for instance.

agree
the NAs displaced/decimated/warred on/TORTURED/stole land/etc of others long before the whites came
..the Iroquois big time

There is some sort of bizarre idea out in the burbs and among academics that 'minorities' are somehow ennobled and wise victims of evul whites, and more benevolent than their alleged 'oppressors' or something, and they're like those cute lil hobbits in Lord Of The Rings N Stuff never mind the realities that they are actually far more vicious and psychotic, and they were just that long before they became these 'hapless noble victims' memes dope addled tards invented for them.

 

[Picaro]

...the military was not used just for the Homestead Acts to fight NAs...they were fighting the NAs since before the Revolution
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1187.html
is your casualty list post 1862?

In the bigger sense I will say the military was used to clear the Natives in preparation for the implementation of Manifest Destiny which was the Homestead Act's purpose. Now I sound a little rougher than most on it, but I will say if I was President in 1880 or anytime around there, I'm not sure I could or would have stopped the westward migration / genocide of the Natives, whichever you prefer. The problem may have driven me to the brink of madness as I THINK I would have been self aware enough to know what was going on.

My numbers are for the century as a whole. My verbiage is loose and conversational and I am guilty of lumping the whole Century from the settling of Ohio Westward as being part of the Homestead Act.

Well, don't worry about it, it doesn't amount to much; most natives were just assimilated into the general population, far more than were 'genocided', the later is actually a joke word that doesn't remotely represent reality, but commies and deviants think it makes them sound cool and enlightened.

 

[Picaro]

Fun Facts in North American history.

Huron

One tribe the Iroquois nearly wiped out.

 

[harmonica]

Fun Facts in North American history.

Huron

One tribe the Iroquois nearly wiped out.

forced to move west.

stolen land/displacement like the Trail of Tears

 

[Picaro]

Well, lots of myths around the Trail Of Tears as well. Another topic, though. I'll just point out they were an existential threat at the time, and Jackson gave them plenty of time, $5 million dollars and supplies, and free land in the West, where a lot of the tribe was already located; their chiefs blew the money and then welshed on the deal. They weren't deliberately killed, either, and Jackson could do nothing to save them from a disease epidemic anyway. They were a menace to the surrounding whites, notorious for selling their allegiances to the highest bidder, changing sides on whims, etc. and in those days still off and on at war with Spain and others. Any other peoples in the world would have just exterminated them a long time ago. They themselves would have certainly done so if the shoe was on the other foot.

 

[IM2]

...Now I'm not criticizing it in this post, Manifest Destiny, the Genocide of Native Americans, those are other topics to be debated elsewhere. What I'm saying is the Homestead Act and similar Acts were great giant government project involving not just grants of a continent's worth of land but the 2nd largest use of our military of the century.

In other words it was one heck of a big government project and when talking about the good ol days we should think of the 1800's as the century of big government.

It was a time of the government doing what it was designed to do regarding 'immigration' and use of the military. Big government isn't opening up 'public' land for settlement and use - big government is closing off public land to settlement and use. The land was given, true - but it came with the caveat of do or die, not welfare, medicaid and food stamps - safety nets had not yet been woven.

https://www.blm.gov/or/landsrealty/homestead150/files/HomesteadingFactSheet_2012.pdf

The free land was that safety net. But that was not all that came with it. Land Grant colleges, County rural extension agencies, low cost loans for farm equipment. It is the prime example of a big government giveaway.

 

[IM2]

Well, lots of myths around the Trail Of Tears as well. Another topic, though. I'll just point out they were an existential threat at the time, and Jackson gave them plenty of time, $5 million dollars and supplies, and free land in the West, where a lot of the tribe was already located; their chiefs blew the money and then welshed on the deal. They weren't deliberately killed, either, and Jackson could do nothing to save them from a disease epidemic anyway. They were a menace to the surrounding whites, notorious for selling their allegiances to the highest bidder, changing sides on whims, etc. and in those days still off and on at war with Spain and others. Any other peoples in the world would have just exterminated them a long time ago. They themselves would have certainly done so if the shoe was on the other foot.

I really don't know if this is accurate.

 

[SeaGal]

...Now I'm not criticizing it in this post, Manifest Destiny, the Genocide of Native Americans, those are other topics to be debated elsewhere. What I'm saying is the Homestead Act and similar Acts were great giant government project involving not just grants of a continent's worth of land but the 2nd largest use of our military of the century.

In other words it was one heck of a big government project and when talking about the good ol days we should think of the 1800's as the century of big government.

It was a time of the government doing what it was designed to do regarding 'immigration' and use of the military. Big government isn't opening up 'public' land for settlement and use - big government is closing off public land to settlement and use. The land was given, true - but it came with the caveat of do or die, not welfare, medicaid and food stamps - safety nets had not yet been woven.

https://www.blm.gov/or/landsrealty/homestead150/files/HomesteadingFactSheet_2012.pdf

The free land was that safety net. But that was not all that came with it. Land Grant colleges, County rural extension agencies, low cost loans for farm equipment. It is the prime example of a big government giveaway.

If you lived that life you'd never call it a 'safety net'...or the land 'free'. You'd call it an opportunity - but success or failure depended on hard work and a measure of good luck with weather and other events beyond your control.