This sounds a lot like the bounty land awarded to Revolutionary War Veterans, except that land was in what is now West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee. The majority of it was in Kentucky. The goal was the same - combat trained men as a buffer between settlements and the frontier. In the RW, one had to serve at least 3 years to be eligible for the minimum amount of bounty land. Officers, depending on their rank, were entitled to more, and those who had served longer than 3 years were awarded more. Irene -----Original Message----- From: LJ Sheahan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 3:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [VAFRANKL] Re: Why Missouri The following is a quote from: http://users.rcn.com/deeds/bounty.htm Bounty Land Warrants for Military Service in the War of 1812 by Jan Bishop McFarland After the War of 1812, Congress enacted legislation to reward military service by entitling veterans to claim land in the northwest and western territories. This so-called "bounty land" was not granted outright to the veterans, but was instead awarded to them through a multi-step process beginning with a bounty land warrant. Bounty land warrants weren't automatically issued to every veteran who served. The veteran first had to apply for a warrant, and then, if the warrant was granted, he could use the warrant to apply for a land patent. The land patent is the document which granted him ownership of the land. Basically, the warrant is a piece of paper which states that, based on his service, the veteran is entitled to X number of acres in one of the bounty land districts set up for veterans of the War of 1812. These land districts were located on public domain lands in Arkansas, Illinois and Missouri. The warrants, themselves, were not delivered to the veterans; all the veteran actually received was a notification telling him that Warrant #XXX had been issued in his name and was on file in the General Land Office. Prior to 1842, if a veteran chose to redeem his warrant for land, he was required to choose land in one of the three states listed above. (After 1842, he could redeem his warrant for public lands in other states.) Warrants could be assigned or sold to other individuals. Benjamin Hibbard, an American public lands historian, believed that the government chose to set the land districts up in these frontier areas because they thought it would be really nifty to have a few thousand battle-hardened war veterans & their families acting as buffers between established settlements and the Native American population. For good or for ill, the veterans were too smart to fall for that one, and most chose to sell their patents to land speculators. So keep in mind that, even if your ancestor applied for a patent, he may never have set foot on his land. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 3:17 PM Subject: [VAFRANKL] Re: Why Missouri > > In a message dated 4/30/2005 11:05:52 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > , too, have wondered why my family chose Missouri. My Copeland and > Corn connection moved from Franklin Co. VA in 1859 to Pettis, Cedar and > Saline Counties. Could the war have played a part as well as land? > > > > > Another reason as to Why Missouri I've heard was that, that was where > pioneers caught the Oregon Trail and some put down roots there instead of making > the trek to the Pacific Northwest. My Foster family from Illinois left > Sangamon Co., Illinois with the ill fated Donner party, but some stayed in Missouri > at the head of the Oregon Trail. Some cousins were still part of the Donner > Party, but haven't done the research yet to trace the lineage or their fate. > > > ==== VAFRANKL Mailing List ==== > Please Visit the Franklin Co. Web Site > http://www.rootsweb.com/~vafrankl/franklin.htm > > ==== VAFRANKL Mailing List ==== Please Visit the Franklin Co. Web Site http://www.rootsweb.com/~vafrankl/franklin.htm