The Homestead Act, like any good governmental decree, covered its bases. Nothing was set in stone, so the whole document is a series of if-then statements. (If we were writing the Homestead Act, we would have put something in about hypothetical robot overlords and zombie preparedness, but the original drafters were clearly unconcerned about what would happen in the Robot Army started land-grabbing.)

As a rhetorical device, the hypothetical lets the government take a step back from language that is more heavy-handed and borderline dictatorial and lets them essentially say, "Oh, hey, look what you get if you do this one little thing first."

Section 2 presents a classic use of hypothetical language.

[…]if, at the expiration of such time, or at any time within two years thereafter, the person making such entry ; or, if he be dead, his widow; or in case of her death, his heirs or devisee; or in case of a widow making such entry, her heirs or devisee, in case of her death ; shall. prove by two credible witnesses that he, she, or they have resided upon or cultivated the same for the term of five years immediately succeeding the time of filing the affidavit aforesaid, and shall make affidavit that no part of said land has been alienated, and that he has borne rue allegiance to the Government of the United States ; then, in such case, he, she, or they, if at that time a citizen of the United States, shall be entitled to a patent[…]

Check out that perfect if-then setup. This setup is all about phrasing the requirements in a way that makes them seem like no biggie. The government is doing this purely out of the good of its heart…and all you have to do is fall in line with those tiny little bureaucratic steps.

This is why you should always read the fine print. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.