Posted: 6/29/2011 7:37:21 AM EDT
|
Hi all! This is Vaughn's wife. I am working on some graduate credits for my teaching certification. They have given us an assignment on the Homestead Act and making a decision or not to take free land, purchase land, or stay on the family farm that you will never own. So I am coming to you all, the true survivalist, risk takers, and history buffs. I am looking for your feedback and insight on this topic.
Option 1: 160 acres (free per homestead act)- eastern Nebraska (60 mi to Iowa)- small stream in one corner of land, 10 acres of deciduous forest, small agricultural supply, village of 60 people, church/school all 6 mi away Option 2: 160 acres (free per homestead act)- northeastern Montana (100 mi west of N. Dakota)- natural water pits that hold water spring to late summer- tributary of Missouri River runs within 10 miles of land- land covered with grass and brush- trading post 17 mi away but not always open- village of 40 people 50 mi away Option 3: 160 acres (free per homestead act)- south Idaho (30 mi to Nevada)- Snake River 40 mi away- Creekbeds 10 mi away, full during rainy season-land covered with grass and brush and is stony- trading post on Snake River 40 mi away-Oregon Trail within 50 mi- a few homesteads within 20 mi radius- village of 30 people 25 mi away Option 4: 160 acres (free per homestead act)- west Washington (10 mi to Puget Sound)- 2 small streams (1 is a forceful tributary of nearby river during rainy periods)- 130 acres evergreen forest- 35 acres marsh and 35 acres a marsh just in winter and spring- a few homesteads within 10 mi radius-village of 45 people 15 mi away Option 5: 80 acres ($12/acre)- deposit of $400 required, payment plans of 2 years $50 a month or 10 years $150 twice a year- within 2 mi of railroad- several dozen existing/developed farms (mostly hog and corn farms), stream, grassland, small groves of trees- town of 250 people 2 mi away- several villages 20-50 people 25 mi away Option 6: stay in Illinois on the small family farm- brother will be inheriting it It is 1866. I have a "spouse and 2 kids... and only $750". Again, I am just looking for your insight... not for you to do my homework. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks all! |
|
I see there's not much "insight" on arfcom. Maybe if you put it in general discussion you'll get more insight.
In 1866 the plains indians were still pretty mean. I wouldn't take a chance with my children in Montana and Nebraska. I don't know what the indians in Idaho and Washington were doing then. A trip to Washington on the Oregon trail would have been grueling, and even more so with children. Plus, how much of your $750 are you going to need to finance the trip? You would definately have to travel with a guided group assembled in St. Louis. Draft animals purchased for the trip may be worthless by the time you get there from exhaustion. A lot of people died on the Oregon trail. With an establish family I would have been reluctant to endanger them. |
|
Hindsight being 20/20 and all ..... I'd go with Option 1 in Nebraska for the following reasons ... 1. It's closest to your current location, less travel hardships 2. I'm guessing the land is more productive than those listed for Montana and Idaho, not to mention that western Washington swampland. 3. Per #2 above, it's less impossible to make a living on 160 acres of eastern Nebraska farmland than it would be on eastern Montana land or the stony quasi-desert of southern Idaho. Again, hindsight showed us that one needs a lot of land to make it in Montana e.g. a lot of the land would have to lie in fallow every other year, and the Idaho land would need to be irrigated but you would still only be able to use it for grazing or growing hay/alfalfa. Sounds like you would need to cut down most of a forest in the Washington land, maybe you could make some money selling the trees for lumber, but how far away is the nearest lumber mill? And you can't really grow good yields of cash crops in Western Washington e.g. wheat, corn. 4. Free is free ....... of course you have to dwell on the land (or have your family stay on the land while you work in town) for 6 (?) years until you can get title to it. But it's better to have that $750 for your expenses rather than losing most of it for the purchased land. 5. Assuming you can survive the 6 years it takes to take title to the land, you could then sell it and buy some awesome land up here in God's Country, e.g. eastern Washington and Northern Idaho. 
|
|
Thanks guys! This gives me a bit more to contemplate as well as reaffirms what I was thinking.
Tnwalker… I hadn’t really given much thought to the Indian situation. That does put another spin on things. Staying home does sound appealing to me in real life… it’s the sure bet… I just don’t know how well the family would survive/thrive on a small, shared family farm. Also, Mr. Vaughn made the comment that I probably should have posted on the general page as well. 
Futuremodal… I was thinking along the same lines. The first successful homesteaders and The Little House on the Prairie stories were set in similar situations to Option 1. And very true… I guess I wouldn’t be stuck there for life… upgrading could be a possibility. 
|