To Eamonn and The List, Since the time of the French and Indian Wars of 1755-1763 (if not before) and particularly after the Revolution there was a general question of the land between the Alleghenies and "the Western Waters" (the Pacific Ocean). What would be done with it? In 1775 there were any number of Continental Powers claiming some, or all, of it. But by circa 1820, control of all of the land in the Americas (saving Canada) was a question which affected primarily the United States, the Hispanic Republics and the indigenous peoples. Between the end of the Revolution in 1783 and Mexico's defeat in the Mexican-American War of 1846 there developed a philosophy called "Manifest Destiny" (loose translation: "it's there, it's populated only by Indians. Should we take it? Of course! It's our Manifest Destiny!). The Homestead Act of 1862 finalized this notion. Prior to the commencement of hostilities between North and South in 1861 the main question was whether this "new land" would be free or slave. When the South seceded, the Republican controlled Congress passed the Homestead Act of 1862. My own belief is that the Irish who fought for the Union thought of this Act as being the entitling element for owning their own land after the war was over, as opposed to Military Land Grants that had been given out to veterans of the Revolution and the War of 1812. Below is a hotlink to the info showing the mechanics of it. http://www.ultranet.com/~deeds/homestead.htm Sadly, it would turn out that "carpetbagging" (IMHO) would become the primary "to the winner go the spoils" method of rewarding those who fought on the victorious side. And, as is so often the case, it was ultimately the prosperous Patroon from Poughkeepsie who gobbled up the spoils, not the poor private from Kilkenny whom was paid "the bounty" to go to war for him. In my state of Missouri, bounty could have several meanings. A true "enlistment" bounty paid by a government (whatever the amount at the time), a bounty paid by someone who was drafted and who should have served but did not and who paid another man (our Kilkenny private) to fight in his stead, and a few more variations on the theme. But (and please, List, correct me if you know different) there was never a quid pro quo arrangement to provide farmland for Irish fusillade. Similarly, many Blacks were promised "forty acres and a mule" for serving the Union to supplement their freedom but it, too, was a hollow promise. Hope that helps. Best Regards, Phil "McNulty, Eamonn" wrote: > A cairde (friends) > > I've heard it said that Irish recruits were enticed to join the on the Union > side in the Civil War with the promise of acres of land west of the > Mississippi after the war. > > Does anybody know if there is any truth in this.? > > Is mise le meas (yours respectfully) > > Éamonn Mac an Ultaigh (Eamonn Mc Nulty). > > Medical Illustration > Princess Margaret Hospital > Perth > Western Australia 6059 > > ==== CIVIL-WAR-IRISH Mailing List ==== > To leave the list, type a message with only the word > unsubscribe > in the text and mailto:CIVIL-WAR-IRISH-L-request@rootsweb.com > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry's Library - The best collection of family history > learning and how-to articles on the Internet. > http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library