Farm Uprising Paper.

Ben Braaten HIST 3845 Farm Uprisings in the late Nineteenth Century.

‘What caused the accident?” “He went through the red light.” “Why did you fail the class?” “I didn’t do the homework.” What caused this? That is a question asked often in our society and the answers often are not simple as above. We live in a complex world with many intricacies; often a straightforward answer is not possible. This is true of the Farm Uprisings of the late Nineteenth Century there was not one cause, to make it simple so we could all say, “Oh,” and then nod our heads and go on with our life. The Farm Uprisings were the result simply of the pressures and changes in the farmer’s lives. They had been promised good free land by the Homestead Act, but instead were forced to more isolated properties. They no longer were independent, but businessman with suppliers, markets and creditors. They were not the powerful players but instead were small players in comparison to the railroads and banks . The Farm Uprisings cannot be explained with a singular answer, but with the story of the lives of the farmers themselves The Homestead Act is at least partly familiar to many Americans. Many can at least mutter something about free land for the settlers on the open prairie. The prairie may have been wide open physically, yet that was not so in terms of open, claimable land available to the homesteaders . The prairie was not without interest from large businesses, and speculators. Railroads in particular, aided by friends in Washington were able to put large expanses of land in their possession. “Location, location, location.” A term familiar in business was true for both the speculators, railroads and the homesteaders. Today you can drive across the

vast prairie at 70 mph on paved roads connecting you many towns, and larger cities. As anyone who has driven such expanses knows, everything is far away and it takes time to get there even at 70 mph. This factor of distance and transportation was an issue for homesteaders and everyone in west with poor roads and few alternatives. (Rinehart, Winston 173) Thus, the value of railroads as a means of transportation was recognized by all involved, the railroads, speculators and homesteaders. Such observations led to railroads commissioning not only the land upon their tracks lay, but the surrounding acreage in recognition of the value of being able to transport people, export crops, and bring in needed equipment and goods to lands away from ample waterways, and sufficient roads. (Gates 157)By purchasing the land surrounding the tracks the railroads obtained a monopoly in surrounding development and the ample funds obtained by owing the land upon which towns will bloom. To make things all the more worse farmers were not only in competition with railroads, but speculators who bought swaths of property. (Gates 156) Most Americans have a picturesque view of farmers promoted by Little House on the Prairie and its Hollywood peers. While there is much missing from such shows, at one time farmers were quite independent out of necessity, which in turn created a culture of independence. A culture, which didn’t look favorably on the transition to Commercial farming and the therein dependence, Dependence on Bankers who know little about what it is like to farm. Onward, there were the various inputs, from equipment to seeds;then one the markets to sell their goods in perfect competition. Going from times of independence , where you produced enough to survive and sell some on the market to being dependent on others for your

livelihood was a rude awakening when the newfound dependence provided= unproven promises and frustration. (Mayhew 468) In addition to these newfound dependences was the financial context. One of the more frustrating and financially debilitating occurrences was the lack of a proficient banking system to manage the money supply. After the Civil War there was a time of deflation, with the currency borrowed out worth less than the currency paid in return. Thus, during normal and bad years the farmers were capable of finding themselves in a financial pinch, with bankers yearning for their property. This as one can easily imagine was a frustrating experience. The farmers had no control over the appreciation of the currency, and could not go without the loans due to their newfound existence as Commercial Farmers. To makes things all the more frustrating for the farmers bondholders, were being held to a different standard than the farmers. (Rinehart, Winston 184) Added to the farmer’s lives was the nationwide transition and promotion of a manufacturing based versus the traditionally agrarian based economy. Their way of life was beginning to lose importance in contrast to the might of the city and industry. The Americans of the late Nineteenth Century could see and learn from the prosperity of their peer nations in Europe and elsewhere. From both their observations abroad and at home they could see that a strong manufacturing base would develop markets for domestic products and create a more vibrant economy, of the same status as the best of Europe. Further, there was fear of dependence and manipulation by the buyers of American agricultural goods. This was of upmost true of American attitudes toward Britain. The farmers faced a young nation with its eyes toward dreams and ideals of the future. Dreams which did not consist of a nation of

farmers, but of industrialists, independence from foreign markets and the therein attributes. (Saloutos 156-157) The farmers operated in the context of perfect competition in terms of markets and were new to, and unfamiliar with the institutions they depended on, had little power beyond actions they could get passed through in Washington. This extended through the Homestead Act and the Governments part in the railroads monopoly of land surrounding their lines, through the monopoly power exercised by the railroads in buying the farmers goods and not ending with the favor shown to bondholders. These were all far from the Farmer and the land that which was their home and life. The farmer had gone from a period of independence and the power to do as he wanted to times of dependence and powerlessness. That is what lead to the farm uprisings, change which took away what the farm had, trusted and valued and replaced it with a system which worked less perfectly, had greater risk and rewards, yet led to powerlessness and dependencies. (Saloutos 156-57)