The last two posts in this series have focused on Peter D and Sarah’s farm, specifically how in July 1879 they purchased the north half of the northeast quarter of section 12 in Farmers Valley Precinct of Hamilton County and then a year later, in August 1880, staked a homestead claim for the south half of the same quarter. This post will take a step back and view the Buller farm as a part of the entire 640-acre section of land.
The drawing below will help us to navigate the terrain. Every acre of section 12 was acquired via a homestead claim. The names listed below identify the first individuals who successfully homesteaded the various parcels; earlier claimants who gave up or lost their claims (e.g., Abraham Sperling, Abraham Martens, and Gerhard Dück for the parcel that Peter D eventually secured) are not listed. The two dates under each name indicate the date the claim was filed and the date that the claim was finally approved and the land became the property of the claimant. Below the drawing I offer several observations about what it reveals.
It is immediately clear that the division of the section was not a tidy process. That is, the section was not neatly divided into four quarter sections and then claimed by potential settlers. Note, for example, the parcels of first two claimants: William George and Adolph Reuber, both made on 27 August 1872. George claimed 160 acres that included the west half of the northwest quarter and the west half of the southwest quarter; his farm was long and narrow. Reuber, on the other hand, claimed only 80 acres: the north half of the northeast quarter. Why he did not claim a full 160 acres is unknown.
Once these initial claims were made, subsequent claims had to carve out their holdings in the land that remained. The next claim, made on behalf of the children of Charles H. Munn (more on that below) several months later, on 16 October 1872, was also for 160 acres (the maximum amount available via the Homestead Act). Although the claim could have been long and narrow like George’s, the claimant opted for the more common square shape; however, the only space that would accommodate such a parcel was to the east of the George claim, with the Munn claim comprising the east half of the southwest quarter and the west half of the southeast quarter.
The following year, on 28 April 1873, Nelson S. Rolland made a claim for the 80 acres between the George and Rueber holding. He could have, I believe, also claimed the 80 acres below the Reuber parcel to create an L-shaped 160-acre farm, but for some reason he was content with his 80 acres. The 80 acres to the south of Reuber remained unclaimed until January 1878, when Abraham Sperling made the first claim on the parcel; as we noted earlier, it passed through several hands until Peter D made his claim on 9 August 1880. Six months later, on 23 February 1881, Abraham Dalke claimed the last remaining piece of land: the east half of the southeast quarter.
Not only was the division of the section a little messy; the time between the original claims and the final granting of the land could vary significantly. As noted in an earlier post, a claimant had to live on and improve the land for a minimum of five years. Reuber’s claim was granted only several weeks after the end of this five-year period, while George’s grant was finalized nearly six years after his claim. The claim made for the Munn children was filed after the Reuber and George claims, but it was granted much earlier, less than three years after it was filed. The Rolland claim was like the Reuber one, being granted less than a week after the five-year requirement had passed. Peter D’s claim, however, waited more than twelve years to be finalized, by far the longest period in the section. Finally, the Dalke claim was granted seven years after it had been filed.
Most of the claims fell within the a five- to seven-year range between filing and finalization. The two outliers, Peter D and the Munn children, require some explanation. Regarding Peter D, it is important to note that, although a settler had to inhabit and improve the land for five years before gaining ownership of the land, there was apparently no deadline for finalizing the claim after the five-year requirement had been met. That is, a settler could conceivably file the paperwork six, seven, ten, or even twelve years after the initial claim with no danger of having losing the land or the claim. Why would someone wait? Perhaps there was a property-tax benefit to delaying official ownership of the land, or maybe there simply was no rush to formalize the settler’s de facto possession of the land with a de jure statement of ownership. Whatever the reason for Peter D’s delay, we do know that the homesteaded part of his 160-acre farm was entirely under his control from the moment that he laid claim to it in 1880.
The Munn children present an entirely different situation. One might ask first how children were able to file a homestead claim, even if someone else was actually filing the claim on their behalf. The answer lies in legislation known as The Soldiers and Sailors Homestead Act of 1872 and its application to the Charles Munn children.
This law, which was passed 4 April 1872, extended the benefits of the 1862 Homestead Act to members of the Union armed forces and to their heirs. The act applied first to
every private soldier and officer who has served in the army of the United States during the recent rebellion for ninety days, or more, and who was honorably discharged, and has remained loyal to the government … and every seaman, marine, and officer who has served in the navy of the United States, or in the marine corps during the rebellion, for ninety days, and who was honorably discharged, and has remained loyal to the government. (all quotations taken from the original bill here)
However, if the Union soldier lost his life, whether during the Civil War or subsequent to it, his benefits passed on to his heirs. Thus the act stipulates in section 3:
in case of the death of any person who would be entitled to a homestead under the provisions of the first section of this act, his widow, if unmarried, or in case of her death or marriage, then his minor orphan children, shall be entitled to all the benefits enumerated in this act, subject to all the provisions as to settlement and improvements therein contained.
Specifically, the benefits passed first to the soldier’s widow if she was unmarried; if she had remarried or herself was deceased, the benefits passed on to the soldier’s minor children. A “guardian duly appointed and officially accredited at the Department of the Interior” was to manage the children’s homestead claim.
In addition to identifying who could receive the benefits of the 1862 Homestead Act, the 1872 legislation also specified that the soldier’s service time counted against the five-year homesteading requirement.
the time which the homestead settler shall have served in the army, navy, or marine corps aforesaid, shall be deducted from the time heretofore required to perfect title, or if discharged on account of wounds received, or disability incurred in the line of duty, then the term of enlistment shall be deducted from the time hereto required to perfect title, without reference to the length of time he may have served: Provided, however, That no patent shall issue to any homestead settler who has not resided upon, improved, and cultivated said homestead for a period of at least one year after he shall commence his improvements as aforesaid. … if such person died during his term of enlistment, the whole term of his enlistment shall be deducted from the time heretofore required to perfect the title.
To summarize, a homesteading Civil War soldier could deduct the time served from the five-year residency requirement; however, if the soldier was discharged due to wounds or disability incurred in the line of duty, then the original term of enlistment (not the actual time of service) was deducted from the five-year requirement. The same terms applied to any soldier who died while serving. Finally, the five-year residency requirement could not be reduced to less than one year; that was the minimum time that all beneficiaries of this legislation had to invest in the claim.
What relevance does this have for Peter D’s neighbors to the south? Charles Henry Munn was a private in the Union Army, a member of Company F of the 8th Wisconsin Volunteers (infantry). He enlisted on 9 September 1861 and died of typhoid fever at the age of twenty-two, on 27 May 1862 (see here for all details on Charles Munn). In addition to his wife, he left behind two sons, Lemuel and Charles Jr. At the time of their father’s death, Lemuel was a year and eleven months, and Charles Jr. was eighteen days old. Four years after the death of Charles Sr., his widow, Mary Green Munn, married James M. Bearse, himself a Civil War survivor (see here). Bearse thus became the legal guardian of the Mumm children and was authorized to file the homestead claim on their behalf, as recorded in the tract-book entry shown below.
I admit that we have wandered a little from Peter D and Sarah’s farm, but from time to time it is helpful to be reminded of the world in which they lived. When Peter D and Sarah and all the other members of the larger Johann Siebert family entered the U.S. in the middle of 1879, the Civil War was still a vivid memory for many who had gone through it a decade and a half earlier. Indeed, the neighbor children who lived to the south had lost their father during the war, and the children’s stepfather had served in and survived it.
Even locally, the world in which Peter D and Sarah and their children (seven by the end of 1879) lived in was far different from ours. Henderson had not yet been platted (that was still eight years off), York was only a decade old, and Aurora was even younger than that. Although the land that eventually became their Farmers Valley home was not all unbroken prairie sod, their life was was undoubtedly difficult, and each year posed new challenges. We will look more closely at one of the more challenging experiences that the family faced in a subsequent post.
No comments:
Post a Comment