Welfare for the Settler: The Homestead Act of 1862

Background and Purpose: The Homestead Act of 1862 (HA) marked the largest distribution of government assets to citizens and prospective citizens in U.S. history. Under the Act, homesteaders could claim up to 160 acres of land, and after dwelling on it for five years, receive the deed, free of charge. Often regarded as progressive legislation that fueled westward expansion, enabled land ownership, and facilitated pathways to citizenship for immigrants, the HA has been classified variously as a land or an immigration law. Yet, its function as a form of social welfare remains underexplored. This study addresses that gap by analyzing the HA through a social welfare lens and examining the implications of doing so.

Methods: We analyzed Congressional Debates of key public land legislation as primary sources: the failed Ten-Million-Acre Bill of 1850, the failed Homestead Bill of 1860, and the successful Homestead Act of 1862. These three debates were selected to provide a broader view of how welfare and land distribution were conceptualized and contested over time. We supplemented these debates with historical newspapers to assess the outcome of the Act and analyze who ultimately benefited.

Results: The primary beneficiary identified in the debates was the “actual settler,” imagined as a white, hard-working, male citizen or prospective citizen. Supporters portrayed this figure as deserving of government aid in the form of land, while opponents characterized potential recipients as lazy, poor, undeserving, and seeking unearned handouts, echoing longstanding stigmas associated with welfare. These debates reflect how social welfare has historically been both racialized and moralized, with perceptions of deservedness shaping public support.

The debates reveal deep tensions around the idea of government aid. For supporters, the HA was not considered welfare because it benefited the right kind of people, while detractors framed the HA as welfare, supporting the undeserving. This contested framing highlights how public perception of welfare has historically depended less on the nature of the aid itself and more on who is receiving it.

Our analysis affirms the HA as a form of social welfare, while rejecting the negative connotations often associated with the term. Newspaper accounts and historical analyses reveal that the Act disproportionately benefited white Northern European immigrants, their descendants, railroad companies, and wealthy white capitalists. In contrast, African Americans, Indigenous Peoples, and non-white immigrants were largely excluded from its benefits.

Conclusions and Implications: Ideas of deservedness profoundly shaped both the rhetoric and outcomes of the HA. Viewing the Homestead Act of 1862 as a social welfare policy provides historical insight into how certain populations gained access to resources that enabled intergenerational wealth, while others were systematically denied such opportunities. Importantly, it challenges dominant narratives about who has benefited from welfare in the U.S. context. Recognizing that those not typically labeled as welfare recipients gained significant advantage through government aid can broaden contemporary understandings of welfare and reduce its associated stigma. This reframing has important implications for social work, particularly in advocating for equitable policy and destigmatizing the use of public assistance.