A critical feature of the Homestead Act is that it was modeled on the implicit principle that the fundamental source and justification of private property rights is individual productive effort. The Act included three conditions; filing an application, improving the land, and filing for deed of title, while living on the land for five years. No one could simply claim land, and do nothing. The land wasn’t “given” away. It had to be earned by people working for their own sake, not some collective benefit. Property rights are a feature of capitalism, not socialism. I would call the Homestead Act an example of capitalism that worked—in this case to peacefully solve the problem of previously unsettled land through privatization in an orderly, fair, and rights-respecting manner.
Inevitably, the issue of “stealing the
Indians’ land” would come up. Chris Goodwin Answered,
in part:
Insofar as this was “socialism in action” you must also see that
it was theft: the land belonged to the Indians, who were driven off because
they had no rights to it because they had no rights at all because they were
inferior people (this is Nazism pre Hitler, but don’t tell anyone, they might
feel “offended”) and then the government used it to buy the support of the
homesteaders. This is the way socialism works - rob the weak to give their
property to the mob.
Goodwin describes himself an an anti-socialist
“anarchist.” So it’s no surprise that anything involving government would have
to be bad. But the very idea that “the land belonged to the Indians”implies a
socialist premise. The idea that the Indians owned the entire continent simply
because their ancestors arrived there first is a racist—i.e., collectivist;
i.e., socialist—concept. A race can’t own a continent. It’s true that the
Indians were treated unfairly in many respects. But so were homesteaders by
some Indians.
The simplistic view that Europeans swooped in
and stole the Indians’ land ignores crucial facts. The Europeans and the
Indians engaged in extensive trade relations. In many instances, the Indians
sold land to the new arrivals. One famous example is the purchase of Manhattan
from Lenape Indians by Dutch settlers in 1626. In fact, trade with the Indians
was so extensive that it was included in one of the most consequential aspects
of the Constitution, the Commerce
Clause, which puts commerce
with the Indian Tribes on par with that with foreign nations and among the
states.
The land subject to the Homestead Act was
unsettled and unimproved, and thus unowned. Settling on land that had no
previous owner is not theft.
For more on this, see the links below.
Related Reading:
3 comments:
I've not read beyond the title and the question.
The answer is: No. Nothing was given away. Nothing was free. There was no property. Nothing was owned by anybody. Somebody had to turn it into his own property by busting his ass and providing written credentials that HE did it. But I'll read the rest of the article anyway, and maybe comment back further.
I've now read the rest of the article. There was no property in land or real estate, so none could be stolen from Indians. Indians were nomadic, never making enduring use of any land. They lived on and off the land, but didn't own any land. And being nomadic didn't give them ownership of the whole continent, not a piece or the whole to any individual nor to the collective. Nomadic abandonment of land leaves the land ownerless.
One more thing, for us moderns. Abandonment of land AND of real estate, meaning improvements of any sort, leaves the WHOLE WORKS ownerless, law or no law. After a reasonable time the owners GIVE UP ownership, and the stuff becomes ownerless for homesteaders to claim and use under the guidance of law. Recognition of that would solve a lot of problems under the principle of unalienable individual rights.
Good pouints. Thanks.
Post a Comment