While the sale and leasing of federal lands has become a burning issue today, it was even more so in the 19th century. Even though disposal of the public domain has been important since the first days of this nation, it was not until the 1840s that Congress focused its attention on the best means to give away public lands. The lasting effect of huge grants of land to the railroads has long been a subject of debate. The story of government grants to the landless was less grand, but just as significant.
Periods of recession bring wide-spread unemployment and low wages -- and can cause social movements to be born in response to economic conditions. So it was, after the panic of 1837. Workers and embryonic labor organizations encouraged a westward movement -- a migration possible only if sections of the public domain were made available. Advocates of land reform urged access to public lands as a means to escape the evils of industrial society. After all, they pointed out, the United States was blessed with what seemed at that time to be an unlimited that time reservoir of natural resources. The slogan, "The right to labor and the right to the soil" became the cry of the jobless and the hopeless back east.
Supported by editor Horace Greeley and politicians Sam Houston, Stephen Douglas and Andrew Jackson, land legislation reached the floors of Congress, but with limited success. When both houses passed a homestead law before the Civil War, President Buchanan vetoed it, reflecting the sentiment of the South and several northeastern states that the homestead movement would destroy land values and stimulate westward migration. Such a population shift, they felt, would upset the labor advantages they enjoyed. It was the Civil War, however, with the secession of southern states, that created a favorable political situation for laws to give free land to the landless.
Passed in 1862 and 1864, the Homestead Act resulted in a significant shift in population from eastern states to the Missouri region. In order to be eligible for 160 acres of free land, one had to be the head of a family, at least 21 years of age, a citizen, or expect to become one, and not have taken arms against the Union. Those serving in the military were allowed to waive some restrictions. Conditions were liberal enough to encourage not only migration but also immigration from European countries.
This policy seemed to be a bonanza for those whohad been denied economic opportunities in the East. However, that was often not the case. The lofty goals of land reformers became very difficult to realize.
For title to be transferred to the homesteader by the government, it was necessary to start building within a short period of time and to have occupied the lot for at least five years. However, with the practice of commutation, a settler could take title after the first year by paying $1.25 an acre. Waiting that short period of time gave homesteaders the option of selling their acreage to large landholders and corporations.
What had started out as a legitimate means to provide a livelihood for many settlers ended in the transfer of large parts of the public domain from government control to private corporations holding large tracts of land. Ironically, what had begun in the 1840s as a way to limit land speculation -- keeping it out of the hands of those seeking immediate profit -- resulted in a windfall for those very groups.
Although the Homestead Act fell short of accomplishing its objectives, it did spur a mass exodus west ward, speeding the development of that section of the United States.
Background Questions:
- Why was access to public lands important for unemployed and underpaid laborers?
- Describe the political climate of homestead laws before the Civil War.
- What were the provisions of the Homestead Acts of 1862 and 1864?
- How well were the goals of the Act actually realized?
- What were the major accomplishments of the Homestead Act?
- Is the sale or leasing of public lands an issue today? Cite any examples you can and describe them.