How did the Federal Gov. gain control of public lands? (The BLM)

Factual Questions
1

I’ve wondered about this for quite awhile and it was never explained in my history classes. At the beginning we had US territories. Settlers were invited to come and stake claims to homesteads. There were Federal laws known as thehomestead acts. There were territorial legislatures and territorial governors. The last one, Gov Mike Stepovich from Alaska died recently. Gradually the territories were granted statehood. Alaska was the next to last one last one in Jan 1959. Hawaii was admitted in Aug, 1959.

A semesters history course in one paragraph. :slight_smile: So, why wasn’t control of the land within the state fully transferred? The states that obtained statehood after the Civil War seem to have much more Federally controlled land. AFAIK the BLM doesn’t control any significant areas of land in the Eastern states or even much of the South. It seems to primarily effect the Western states.

I’ve read its been a burdon for Alaska. They were granted statehood but they’ve had tremendous problems developing it into a modern industrialized state. The resources and much of the land is controlled by the Feds. They are constantly being blocked from developing the state.

The BLM is also at the center of a controversy with a Nevada rancher. There are threads on that elsewhere. Thats not a GQ topic.

What puzzles me is the mind set. Yes, today big gov is popular and I can see the Feds keeping control. But back in 1870-1899 I wouldn’t have expected that mindset. Why wasn’t the land inside a state given to them? Just like it was in the Eastern and Southern states? Even in the Midwest states isn’t nearly all the empty land state land?

2

This is just amazing. They were granted statehood in 1864 but Nevada only controls 14% of the land. How was this justified and how did it happen? I haven’t seen figures for Alaska, but I suspect Fed land is a high percentage there too.

Its not surprising why most of Nevada is not populated. Its Federal controlled land.

3

the right wingers whose heads are exploding and their buddy Mr. Bundy might want to read some history. The requirement that cattle grazers pay fees to the BLM for the use of federal lands was established by an Executive Order issued by rightie hero Ronald Reagan.

4

I started this GQ thread to learn how any why the Western states land ownership was retained by the Federal gov. Completely different from how the Eastern and Southern states were formed. I don’t know the exact figure, but it seems like the first 35 states were given control of the land within their borders. Nevada was the 36th state. I think the BLM has land in all the states admitted later.

The Bundy debate is for the other forums.

5

Wiki article.

BLM lands are essentially all the land that was not claimed under the Homestead act and the Mining act. They weren’t ‘taken’ from anyone. No one wanted them.

6

Let us divide the states into groups:

Group I: The original 13, plus states which here hived off directly from them without ever being territories. (VT, KY, TN, WV) There was never any federal “public domain” in these states. The federal government owns land in these states, but only where it bought it for a specific reason–military bases, national parks, federal prisons, federal office buildings, and so forth.

Group II: Other states east of the Mississippi. The original 13 ceded their claims to these territories as a condition of confederation, and both sovereignty and ownership passed to the federal government. However, these states are prime agricultural land, and virtually all of it was bought by private citizens at premium prices.

Group III: States west of the Mississippi, save for AK, HI, and TX. The government originally owned the land in these states because it bought it–via the Louisiana Purchase and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The only exceptions were land retained by American Indians and land settled by private citizens under valid title from France, Spain, or Mexico. (These titles were often litigated and held invalid.)

In the Midwest, again, this was prime agricultural land, and almost all of it was eventually homesteaded, sold, or granted to railroads and resold. States were usually granted small amounts of land upon statehood, or to sell and fund state universities under the Morrill Act.

In the far West, land was completely unsuitable for homesteading. The federal government usually leased land for ranching or prospecting, instead of selling it or giving it away. Then, too, there are many national parks and monuments in the West. So, the feds retain much of the land even today.

Group IV: Texas. Because Texas was an independent republic for nine years, it negotiated better terms for itself upon annexation in 1845. Texas was allowed to retain its public domain land, so again, the federal government owns nothing except what it bought at specific times for specific purposes.

Group V: Alaska. Alaska was given much of its public domain, but not all, and Congress attempted to treat the natives more fairly and they were awarded ownership of large tracts of land. But Alaska is huge so the feds still own a lot there.

Group VI: Hawaii. Much of Hawaii was privately owned before the US gained sovereignty. I don’t know much about Hawaii land ownership.

7

I understand much of the BLM land is either desert or wilderness areas. But, normally when borders are established for a country or a state; control of the land is transferred too. It might be a inhabitable mountain range in West Virginia, but its still in their jurisdiction.

There are exceptions. Military Bases inside a state are Federal Reservations. Arkansas has some military proving grounds that were used for weapons development in WWII. Its understandable why those areas are Federally controlled.

It’s an interesting subject. I wish the college history classes would have covered this in detail. The homestead acts and Oklahoma land rush were maybe two weeks of the semester long course. Maybe six lectures total? :wink:

8

The basic principle is that the Native Americans didn’t own the land because they weren’t using it the way Europeans considered valid. So land in America was unowned and available for anyone to come along and claim it. (Obviously this was a theory developed by Europeans.)

So the land’s original owner, according to Western law, was the European nation which first landed there. From there, the European country could bring in settlers and give/sell them land which they would then own as their personal property (albeit while still be subject to the laws of the European country.) And if a territory was transferred from the control of one European power to another, the private property ownership of the settlers remained in force.

The territory in the eastern and southern states (and some of the southwest) was settled when Europeans were still in charge so most of that land had passed on to private ownership when the United States was founded and began expanding. But eventually the United States acquired territory that hadn’t been settled while under European control. So the United States was in charge while this land was first settled on to private owners. (Once again, keep in mind the Native Americans weren’t consider to be valid property owners.)

The western states don’t have much public land because they were formed out of the settlement of these lands. The national government owned the land, settlers moved in and acquired ownership, and then a state was formed when the population reached a certain level. It wasn’t like the national government created a government of Montana and then told them to fill up the land they were in charge of. Montana didn’t exist until it was already settled. (The exception was Texas, which existed as a nation before becoming part of the United States.)

9

Statements like this are just … off.

Nevada has a lot of privately owned land that is just sitting there, not really developed. A lot. The Federal stuff, on average is worse than that. There is absolutely no impediment to development in places like Alaska and Nevada in terms of BLM and similar land. National parks and such are another thing, as they should be.

Note that leasing/using Federal land is a huge boon to private companies. E.g., a mining company can start up a mine on Federal land for virtually nothing and pays squat for the extraction. And when done, they just walk away. Don’t have to worry about clean up and restoration. That is one sweet deal.

Compare that to actually buying land, or buying mineral rights from private entities.

Timber leases are also a good deal. They get the cutting rights for an unbelievably low price and when done, just walk away. Immensely cheaper (for them) than private timberland ownership.

One of the shocking aspects of this is the money spent by the Feds on building access roads and such is frequently higher than the money they get from timber rights. I.e., if they left the land alone, the taxpayers would be better off. That doesn’t happen with private land.

Grazing rights on BLM are another sweet deal. Very cheap, can overgraze and damage the land, etc. Much better than owning the land. Don’t really have to bid competitively (in practice). Hence families grazing on the same land for 100+ years.

The US government loses untold billions on these arrangements. The money goes into the pockets of companies and individuals who don’t want to lose this. (Hence the issue in the news.)

10

Nice summary Freddy. That helps visualize how statehood evolved over time. Heres some history on Hawaii. It was the independent Republic of Hawaii for awhile before becoming a territory. That may explain why the Feds didn’t get their land. Similar situation as Texas.

11

Isn’t it the whole point of this thread that that isn’t what normally happens?

12

I’d bet that today, if we were to reinstate the Home Act, there would be takers. I would love to have me some land.

13

From what I’ve read the first 35 states have control of most of the empty/public lands within their borders. Nevada the 36th state is the first one that I know of where that changed.

Kansas and West Virginia were the 34th and 35th states and I’m not aware of any large areas of Fed land there.

It seems that only 14 states out of 50 entered statehood with large parts of their public land under Fed control. I’m not saying that is good or bad. It is a different situation from what most Americans experience.

14

Aceplace, have you been to Nevada? Outside of Vegas, there’s little land (not already taken) that most people could ever want to live on. I recently went on vacation in a fairly remote resort in Southern Utah, requiring a four hour drive from Las Vegas. Most of what I saw until leaving Nevada was desert-type land. In the days of the Homestead Act, before large scale water management and federal highways, the place was likely even less appealing to the average homesteader. Why stay there when you could always seek better land elsewhere (or just continue west until you hit California!). There’s a reason why the BLM retained control of most of the land. Nobody wanted it!

15

I see your point its public land that no one wants. It could have been administered under a state controlled land management agency that functioned much like the BLM. Maybe the states didn’t want the cost or headaches of doing that when they were granted statehood?

I see the point that back in 1864 no one thought it mattered who controlled the desert.

It would be interesting to research what did happen when Nevada’s early citizens submitted their application for statehood. Was control of the public land even a negotiated issue? The US may have just kept it by default.

16

Ahhh…no.

Most of Nevada is not populated because most of the state will not easily support human life. Where there is water in Nevada, there are either cities, towns or some form of settlement. Unfortunately, that’s not the majority of the state.

Nobody wanted most of the land in Nevada because is was either unforgiving desert or steep and mountainous terrain. Even the Native Americans were clustered around the limited available water prior to their ethnic cleansing by White settlers.

That’s why the US government owns so much of the state.

17

The Homestead Act didn’t just give out free land willy-nilly. You had to actually live on it and “make improvements” which usually meant farm it. The law actually stayed on the books (IIRC) until sometime in the 1970’s but in reality the last of the even marginally farmable land was homesteaded in the 1920’s. More to the point, though, the small single family farms that the whole homesteading concept is based on were only ever really good for providing slightly more than very basic subsistence, even on good land.

So even if there still were some halfway decent land left, I doubt there’d be many takers. There is, however, all sorts of worthless desert acreage in private hands that can be had for cheap if you simply must join the landowning class.

18

Informative thread – thanks to all.

I’m interested on hearing more about what aceplace noticed: that sometime after the settlement of Kansas, for leftover public land after homesteading, emphasis shifted from state ownership to federal ownership.

Perhaps due to the Civil War increasing the practical power of the federal government, especially to keep states in check? Or maybe because the thinner settlement of the desert West made for a smaller tax base, so state governments preferred to not have to manage large tracts?

19

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Did you, like, read the bit from Wikipedia that you quoted? Do you seriously believe that the reason that Nevada and Alaska are not densely populated hives of industry like the east coast states is because the federal government (which has such a big interest in depressing American industry, right?) is hogging more of their land?

Wow. Just wow! That’s breathtaking.

20

Here’s the summary of the wind-down of the system. Hardly any land was suitable for homesteading in the lower 48 after the 30s. But Alaska was still being homesteaded thru the 70s.

There were many mistakes made in being overgenerous with homesteading. E.g., in large parts of the Dakotas and the Intermountain West, people would settle down, farm for a few years, get by for a bit, and then some bad years and they’d lose it all. Those lands ended up as grazing land as they should have been.

And western Nebraska was very badly managed.

The government wasn’t trying to keep land out of people’s hands. Quite the opposite. They allowed too much to be available and it hurt people.

Note that there were other systems similar to homesteading. E.g., both sets of my grandparents got land that was to be newly irrigated thanks to a program for WWI vets. Went from sagebrush to lush green farms in a decade. A lot of tales like that: the government helping people to settle and own former government land. When practical.

Emphasis on the “practical”.