The disposition of a land grant or bounty land warrant if the individual did not want to take up ownership depended on the time period and under what law the grant was made. Originally, the 1812 land bounties for service could only be claimed by the veteran receiving the grant. Later, the law changed so that such warrants could be sold or transferred. Often, such laws were made retroactive, leading to a patchwork of rights accorded to the veteran. Warrants and bounties for land in return for service to the government included land in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, and other areas depending on the war of service, the law in effect at a particular time, the length of time of service, and other factors. Later, this system became the homestead act, various forms of which included many or most of the western states and Alaska; "homesteaded" land did not require prior service to the government. The price to the veteran and the amount of land granted also varied with time. If a veteran did not exercise or sell a grant, it reverted to the government in some cases, ended up in large speculative parcels purchased by speculators, or were granted to someone else. Occasionally, there were conflicting grants for the same land. A useful read to explain these various laws and outcomes is in Greenwood's "The Researcher's Guide to American Genealogy." I have the 2nd edition, but there is one more recent. An interesting side note is that disloyalty to the government during the Civil War was considered grounds for revocation of veteran's rights, including land and pension. I have one case in my family in which a daughter, living in Illinois, claimed that her father in Arkansas was disloyal during the war, claimed the pension and land in his stead by default, and essentially denied a pension to her father while this was being investigated. Other family members claimed that she was just greedy, wanting all to herself. Her claim was not upheld, but her father died before the investigation was complete. Even if she had been correct, it was documented that she did not have any legal claim to either the pension or the land. John R. Porter j.porter@usip.edu