Agrarian_Discontent

DBQ Agrarian discontent During the period of 1880-1900 American farmers, such as Oliver Kelly, and even European immigrants played an integral role in the settlement and expansion of the American frontier as the Homestead Act of 1862 provided 160 acres of land for new settlers and encouraged expansion as seen through new Midwestern states such as Oklahoma. The act, initially a government attempt to fill empty spaces between the coasts, led to the growing influx of sodbusters in the Midwest but, despite the existence of the act, the majority of new farmers still bought land from railroads, land companies or states. In fact, roughly ten times as much public land was purchased by land grabbing companies, such as the North Pacific railroad, and resold to settlers at a profit. This early issue of unfair land sales would be the first of many to challenge the new farmers as the silver issue, natural disasters and an unregulated market would all challenge the new farmers’ way of life and ability to survive. As seen through Doc A, farmers would argue, through the Populist Party, that a lack of government aid in the form of a silver currency and market regulations would be the main reason for their financial stress. Conversely, Doc E argues that the reason for the farmers’ predicament was their own one crop economy and production of surpluses. Ultimately, both sides contained valid truth in their arguments. At the outset of settlement, corporations such as the North Pacific and other private promoters, looked to take advantage of the new settlers. As settlement increased little to no federal regulation was placed on the new agricultural markets which at first, was wanted by the farmers themselves given their agrarian and individualistic nature. However as seen in Doc D, this unregulated market would lead to terrible financial straits for the farmers as the Northeast, protected by tariffs, would charge 8-40% interest rates on the farmers’ mortgage. Also, the one crop economy of the farmers meant that, in the case of low currency rates or foreign agricultural success in the Russian or Argentinean markets, they would be faced with having to relinquish more of their crop in order to pay their mortgage. Also, Doc F shows the abuse of trusts that the farmers faced, specifically in the areas of barbed wire, harvesters and fertilization. This abuse extended even to the purchase of new farm equipment such as the twine binder and the combined reaper thresher, both of which were too expensive for average farmers to purchase mainly because of the outrageous prices. As a result, trusts led a growing gap amongst the farmers themselves as large, successful farms grew even larger and smaller ones went out of business. Furthermore, Doc C accurately portrays the deflation of the time period in which the farmers’ struggled simply to survive because their surpluses of crops lowered to market too much for them to turn a profit. In even further support of more federal regulation are Docs G and H both of which show the dubious nature of railroads and their monopolistic nature as they could charge nearly any price they desired because there was no other means of transportation for the farmers’ produce. The farmers’ claims that lack of government regulation attributed to their financial ruin was relatively valid however, their failure to attribute some of their own shortcomings to nature itself should not be ignored as vast amounts of farmers settled in arid regions west of Powell’s correctly positioned 100th meridian before the advent of large irrigation projects and as a result, had little success. However, there were areas in which As seen through Doc A, populists such as Ignatius Donnelly, Mary Elizabeth, William Hope the author of “Coin’s financial school” and presidential candidate William Jennings Bryant advocated a solution mainly through the coining of silver at 16oz equivalent to 1oz of gold. However as seen through doc B, conservatives, such as McKinley himself, believed this idea to be completely irrational as they argued “good money never made times hard.” Furthermore, Doc E argues that the farmers’ inability to grasp business concepts such as a global market and the dual nature of surpluses were reasons for their demise. Both arguments made by Docs E and B would prove to be valid as, after the depression of 1893, the farm markets would again blossom without silver currency. McKinley’s Dingley Tariff and Gold Standard Act both brought the Midwestern farmer their desired economic prosperity and the silver question was laid to rest. The majority of the Midwestern farmers’ complaints were legitimate as big businesses, such as the North Pacific Railroad and trust organizations, did take advantage of them. However, their inability to compromise on anything short of silver currency, their inept nature regarding business, as seen through their one crop economy and production of too many surpluses, and there willful ignorance in the early settlement west of the 100th meridian were also factors toward their own demise that they failed to acknowledge. In all, the farmers’ were justified in their complaints but were too unyielding and stubborn in their demands for any real progress to be made under their consent.