another self-strategy was the alliance exchange making farmers focus on a central purchasing house. all these actions failed because farmers were too poor or in debt due to prior sales. the system was poorly capitalized, prices were too high for farmers, they ended up being victims to business causing the uprising of boycotts. the subtreasary plan succeed this plan helped farmers by giving them loans in order to grow and sell crops. The back and forth communication and strategies not only lead the famers to a political path but it also began the start of the populist party.
However, the question as to how beneficial the Agricultural Revolution was to humanity remains. Some people argue that the Agricultural Revolution offered and illusion of lavish life, but at more cost than benefit. For example, Friedrich Engels, co founder of Marxism, believed agriculture the direct cause for a loss of political innocence (Noble or Savage 2). Others argue that agricultural came as a great success for the survival of the human race, and believe it to be crucially beneficial to the development of humanity. Both arguments have their flaws and strengths, however, evidence suggests that the Agricultural Revolution benefited humanity from the perspective of a larger group, but came as a deficit to humanity from the perspective of the individual human.
He explains how much cotton America produced compared to the world, how much cotton the world required, and how important cotton was to America's economy. This improves the reader's understanding of the Americans want for land and helps contextualize the arguments made by Wallace. Lastly, Wallace does a good job of not showing a bias towards or against Jackson. He explains Jackson’s personal reasons for putting the Indian Removal Act in motion, but also presents other points. He explains economic factors and factors from outside of the states that influenced the treatment of Natives.
Despite this causing a terrible genocide of Cherokee Indians along the Trail of Tears, when looking at this decision through solely an economic view, it clearly helped the American economy thrive. Jackson made this decision to evict the Native Americans due to the fact that they lived on fertile lands that weren’t being used to their full potential. Jackson thought that these potential farm lands would be much more useful if American farmers settled the area (Whaples 546-547). Thus, by removing the Indians, Jackson cleared up an abundance of fertile land to sell to the American citizens. As stated by author Robert Whaples in his article Were Andrew Jackson’s Policies “Good for the Economy”?, during Jackson’s presidency, “the federal government sold almost 50 million acres to the public out of the 88 million acres sold from 1820 to 1849” (Whaples 548).
(Miller Center) Along with the civilian conversation corps, FERA gave relief to many Americans in time of crisis. In 1993, Roosevelt brought to relief to farms by passing the Agriculture Adjustment Act (AAA). The AAA gave incentive to farmers, who agreed to lower their number of produce. This, in turn, would expel most of the inflation caused by over produce in agriculture. Although, however, it gave mostly to the wealthy than the poor, and in some cases in 1933 entire farms were destroyed.
Instead of having a positive effect, this practice damaged the land by leaving the dry, unfruitful soil at the surface. Although it had been happening for a while, harmful farming techniques began having a larger effect when done in such a large scale. “Dust Bowl During the Great Depression” tells about the harmful farming techniques that caused the Dust Bowl. The farmers were removing grass that benefited crops that could endure harsh weather and keep crops fixed in the ground. This method revealed the topsoil, leaving it vulnerable to violent winds.
Through agricultural transformation land is included to the market system. Those who have private property on certain lands started to make us of it for the pure interest of themselves by excluding the peasants. Migrated peasants and unemployed city artisans, as a result of industrial developments, consisted a new class who has nothing than its labor force to sell. The legal arrangements such as the New Poor Law for the time, derived the labor class from any social assurance and force them to work in inhumane standards. Money also became a commodity through acceptance of international Gold Standard which deprived the political authorities of the regulation of money.
The settlers actually tried to compensate some of that land back to the Indians by a document called the Dawes Act, which supposedly protected Native American property rights, mainly through the land rushes in the 1890s. This was a method used to grant them land allotments and encourage them to become farmers. The Americans thought that this would eventually lead the Native Americans to adopt American lifestyles by farming in the “American way,” which is with tools, and animals, as well as other tools necessary to dig into the dry, hard land. This was not freedom to the Native Americans. Althpugh the Americans believe that granting them land allotments would be considered freedom to the Native Americans, ut was not.
Truthfully, it was a complete failure. The nation came to compromises on matters such as education and the economy, but in a bigger picture, racism was still an enormous and unacceptable issue. Since slavery was abolished, African Americans attained a more unfair version of freedom. They needed to make an income, find shelter, and gain experience in the world, so many freed slaves became sharecroppers. Sharecroppers farmed on land they rented from a landlord, in exchange for a share of the crop they produced.
One of the many rationales for the South leaving is because of their discrepancies in politics. Third, the South left because of economic difference.”The South established a rural way of life supported by an agricultural economy based on slave labor….The North developed an intricate railway system and shipping industry to transport the manufactured goods.” (Doc 3). That quote shows that North’s way of living is based on factories and the South’s way of living is with slavery and plantations. The difference in their surroundings created them different needs,so one thing that affects the North might not affect the South.The South’s session was because their needs differed from the North’s
After the civil war, government estiabled different policies. Changes occurred one by one. Between 1860-1900, government policies position the farmers and ranchers in the west not only progress on individual opportunity by giving farmers more land opportunity and educational opportunity, but also setback on individual opportunity by giving farmers poor land resource and less market securing credit. First, government policies made a progress in increasing individual opportunity which specifically about land distribution and education system among the farmers between 1860-1900. For land distribution, one of the policies was the Homestead Act.
In the post-Civil War South, the economic situation that followed the emancipation of slaves and therefore the loss of the labor force, forced the South to find a suitable replacement for slavery. This also meant enacting laws designed to keep former slaves tied to the land. The economic system, which replaced slavery, was sharecropping. To keep the former slaves tied to the land, however, laws such as the black codes ensured a steady stream of workers to harvest the crops. Furthermore, vagrancy laws, which were designed to punish vagrants by making them harvest crop for a plantation owner, were passed.
This offered insight into what the everyday average person thought about this the Erie Canal, and how it effected their lives. In an attempt to justify what they took from these farmers whose livelihood was decimated, there was a plan put in place to compensate the victims. The government stated that the repossession of their property was done for the “common good”. This meant that the state intended to put the interests of landowners above those of the farmers. Landowners could alter the property of any of their neighbors so long as they gave them compensation for the land’s productive worth.
When soil became depleted, the natives would change locations. Natives would also burn woodlands to clear the land for farming, and make hunting much easier. Natives in a variety of areas treated the land different, which impacted it differently. Colonists argued that your right to own the land was based on how you altered it. The natives though didn’t appear to be altering the land, which meant they had no legal rights to it.