Homestead and Kinkaid Act - Abraham Lincoln and Moses Kinkaid

[Matt Macoubrie]

Throughout Lincoln’s political career, he talked of the real American dream and what it entailed. Lincoln claimed that the American dream was open to all who worked hard and followed the law, and he would show that possibility of an American dream once passing the Homestead Act of 1862.

The reason why most people left to Homestead in territories such as Nebraska was because prior to the Homestead Act of 1862, title to lands in the public domain could be acquired by purchase under the Pre-Emption Law of 1841, by which a settler could file a claim to 160 acres of the public domain or government land and acquire title by paying $1.25 per acre.

Following the Homestead Act, vast amounts of the public domain were given to private citizens. Following the implementation of the act, 270 million acres or 10% of the land of the United States was claimed and settled under the act. To obtain the 160 acres of land, the only qualifications were that one was to be the head of the household or at least 21 years of age. In fact, many settlers walked from hundreds of miles away, leaving their land in the East to obtain “free land” in the west. In addition, tens of thousands of British, Irish, German, and even Scandinavian immigrants moved to the United States following the Homestead Act, jubilant that the United States was giving away farms.

Due to the Homestead Act, railroads were built in the Midwest, which brought nearly 2 million Europeans to the plains between 1870 and 1900. Lincoln was never able to see the outcomes of what he had done for the country not only following the Civil War, but because of the Homestead Act. On April 14, 1865, on a cold spring night . . . Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth at Ford’s Theater, which would change history forever. Eventually, Congress tried to improve farming with the Morrill Land Act later in 1862 and eventually the Kinkaid Act in 1904.

In 1904, Moses Kinkaid a Republican Congressional Representative from the Sixth District in Nebraska, which contained the majority of the Sandhills in Nebraska, proposed a bill that allowed 37 counties in western Nebraska to obtain up to 640 acres of land instead of the 160 acres that the Homestead Act provided. Even though there was poor soil quality and a harsh arid climate, Kinkaid believed that in the end, the settlers would be able to “complete all of the government’s requirements and eventually taking title to the property.” Many could not understand the significance of the bill because the government was giving millions of acres of land to farmers that were not likely to succeed due to the dry land. However, Moses Kinkaid believed in them.

Though geographically the Homestead and Kinkaid Act were different, they had similar provisions. Claimants had to be at least 21 years old (or 18 if the head of a family); be either a U.S. citizen or eligible to become one; and stay on and improve the land for five years. Lands that were deemed irrigable, however, were exempted from the law since the government believed that settlers would willingly pay for them.

After careful consideration by the United States government, President Teddy Roosevelt signed the Kinkaid Act into law on April 28, 1904, and “Kinkaiders” began taking up claims in western Nebraska soon after. Though the success rate was not up to par to what the government and state legislators such as Kinkaid had hoped for, around 14,000 claims were made under the Kinkaid Act, and over 9 million acres of land were distributed to settlers in the Sandhills. That 9 million makes up for nearly 1/6 of the total acreage in Nebraska.

Some historians like to think that the Kinkaid Act was a failure, but it not only brought the cattle and ranch culture to Western Nebraska, but it also brought money to the seemingly inexistent Sandhills of Nebraska. Even today, there are families still living on land that either was given to their ancestors through the Homestead or the Kinkaid Act. Without the Homestead Act, the population of Nebraska would not have spurred as it did. In fact, between 1860 and 1910, the population of Nebraska per square mile increased from 29 in 1860 to 1,192 in 1910.

Without the population increase, Nebraska could certainly not have supported institutions developed from the Morrill Land-Grant Act such as the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. In addition, without the Homestead Act, other acts such as the Kinkaid Act might have not been proposed. Concisely, the Homestead Act brought prosperity and hope to Nebraskans not only during the late 19th century, but for generations to come.


***I know this is a review for most of you but I just wanted to refresh everyones memory and bring up a part of my state's history. Thanks to Abraham Lincoln and his cabinent passing the Homestead Act of 1862, other acts such as the Kinkaid Act were able to be brought to the public forefront!! Thanks again AL!!!

[Liz Rosenthal]

Matt, I have some questions for you.

What was the impact on the land itself that was provided to farmers under the Kinkaid Act? Was the land considered prairie, desert, or something else? You mentioned that much of the land was arid and not susceptible to irrigation. Did this arid land truly "bloom in the desert"? And, when droughts occurred, what happened? Did the land turn into a dust bowl? How is this land being used today?

Thanks.

[Matt Macoubrie]

Liz,

The main goal of the Kinkaid Act was to allow cattle and ranching to develop within Nebraska. There are some irrigable lands within the Sandhills of Nebraska, but not very much, and it was much easier for many ranchers to have more land in the Sandhills. If you google Nebraska Sandhills, you will see that it is literally sand, with a little prarie. I would not consider it a desert because there are many lakes up there and flowing rivers. As for your question about "blooming", the answer is yes and no. The prairies get prettier, but nothing truly blooms because all that grows out there is grass, and when drought occurred, it was not too big of an issue, because they had at minimum 640 acres of land and they were not used to irrigating that much because the grass did not need it as much as the crops did. Now, in some cases, there were wildfires that destroyed some of the prairie's but for the most part, the land that the ranchers were on was the same way it was prior to moving on it. I personally don't recall reading anything about the dust bowl, nowhere near as bad as it was in Kansas. Most of the land out in the Sandhills is sand, not so much dirt which is lighter in its composite, which allows it to "fly". Today the land is being used just as it was back in 1904. There are hundreds and thousands of ranchers up there that are still living on the land that was given to their ancestors. Up in North and Northwest Nebraska, many people are either farmers or ranchers, which differs completely from where I am from where we are industrious and more modern. I hope that answered your questions! I love when people ask me these type of questions!!!

[Liz Rosenthal]

Thanks for the quick response!

[Eva Elisabeth]

Several sources say that Lincoln, due to the war and his adherence to the Whig theory of the presidency, had just little to do with most of the enactments and measures he signed (thus also with the Homestead Act). Was it really like this? And what about his two pocket vetoes? (Especially his refusal to sign the Wade-Davis Bill, I would doubt this was just a "passive" action).

[Matt Macoubrie]

I can believe that notion because most of agricultural people are the ones who proposed the bill, but Lincoln liked it

[Liz Rosenthal]

(07-18-2013 07:46 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Several sources say that Lincoln, due to the war and his adherence to the Whig theory of the presidency, had just little to do with most of the enactments and measures he signed (thus also with the Homestead Act). Was it really like this? And what about his two pocket vetoes? (Especially his refusal to sign the Wade-Davis Bill, I would doubt this was just a "passive" action).

I think that that was David Herbert Donald's argument. Personally, I think he was just trying to come up with an original way of looking at Lincoln's presidency. Every Lincoln author has to have a new "twist" on the scholarship to justify their publications. This was Donald's twist.

I wish I could recall where, but I've gotten the impression from a number of sources that Lincoln was a lot more involved, behind-the-scenes, with Federal legislation than Donald has given him credit for. (Also, certain modern-day scholars take issue with Donald's thesis of Lincoln's alleged passivity.) It's worth noting that most of the landmark legislation of Lincoln's presidency had started out on the 1860 Republican Party platform, and that those policies were derived in large part from old Whig Party aspirations that never went anywhere because of Democratic - and southern - opposition. Once the southern states seceded and their Congressional representatives left Washington, the path was cleared toward passage of a lot of legislation that hadn't had a chance before.

Part of the problem may be that much of Lincoln's legislative work as president was done "off the record" - i.e., in meetings, but not "reduced to paper." The same can be said of many other aspects of his presidency. He managed the political situations in the states very deftly, to his advantage, and a good amount of this was done behind-the-scenes. He also orchestrated the selection of Andrew Johnson as his v.p. running mate in 1864 (the biggest mistake of his political career). His secretary, John G. Nicolay, took issue with those people, such as Alexander McClure, a Pennsylvanian politico, who insisted, years later, that putting Johnson on the ticket was Lincoln's decision. But it is evident that, despite their close relationship, Lincoln did not tell Nicolay everything.

Meanwhile, I take issue with some of Donald's other original ideas, too. He insisted that Lincoln was a poor impromptu speaker - and/or that Lincoln was not good at "thinking on his feet" - but there is ample evidence that the opposite was true. Donald also suggested that Lincoln broke off his engagement with Mary Todd because Lincoln had never had sex and was terrified of it. Yeah, right. Donald was an excellent writer, but perhaps too imaginative a fellow.

[Matt Macoubrie]

I would agree with you liz completely

[Hess1865]

Me too.
And picking Andrew Johnson was the biggest mistake he made, though I wonder if Hamlin would have been able to deal with the job after Lincoln's death.

[Matt Macoubrie]

Johnson certaintly would have not been my first choice, because he just did not seem to have the qualities to lead a rebuilding nation. I truly wish Lincoln could have led Reconstruction, but dreams are dreams. It didn't help Johnson's reputation after his miserable campaigning and his impeachment trials! Lincoln basically set him up a silver platter to become a great leader, but Johnson squandered in the limelight.

[Rogerm]

The wounds left by the Civil War were so deep, that, probably only a person of Lincoln's stature could have lead the nation through an even half-way successful Reconstruction period. The consequences of a lack of good leadership during that period of our history are still being felt today.