Agrarian Ideals And The Ideal Size And Role Of Government

Nearly all of the reasons for agrarian discontent in the late 19th century stem from three areas: land, transportation, and money. The farmers were fighting the perceived threats posed by monopolies and trusts, railroads, and the demonetization of silver. The American farmer during this period already had his fair share of problems which, compared to the success of the industrialized businessmen, resulted in much of the animosity between the two groups. The fact of the matter was farmers had entered a viscous cycle. Wheat and cotton, once the staples of American agriculture were selling at such low prices that it was almost impossible

Within the contents of the “republicanism: 1816-1850” (I chose to use the dates because students these days appreciate minimalism and direct terms more than titles), there should be a focus on Industrialization, Social Ramifications of Industrialization, Westward Expansion, and Politics. First though, an understanding of republicanism must be achieved. Please recall that republicanism became popular in the revolutionary period. Throughout the years of our textbook, a common phrase for businessman, politicians, and others was, “appealing to nations republican heritage.” The central tenants of republicanism are the protection of the common good, to the point of citizens being subordinated for the communal well-being, and the protection of the interests of the people, achieved by citizens participating in the political process. Rulers are to

Jefferson wanted farming to be the biggest part of the economy while Hamilton wanted a balance of trade, agriculture, and manufacturing. Before the Revolution the Colonists had no say on their economy so this was a large change from before the revolution. In addition, the U.S. no longer had to be under mercantilism so they could now make money off of the goods that they grow. Lastly, the invention of the cotton gin completely changed farming. Before cotton was the most profitable crop, it was tobacco. Tobacco was the most profitable crop for many centuries and when Eli Whitney created the cotton gin, everything changed. At first cotton was hard to grow and harvest so it was not profitable for people to grow it. But the cotton gin made growing cotton so easy that it made it very profitable. The cotton gin led to the need for more slaves and allowed many people to grow rich from harvesting the

The Industrial era, starting after the Civil War and ending at the end of the 19th century, was a significant time in American history. To determine the discontent of farmers, all aspects of the Industrial era must be analyzed. Socially, the farmers represented the widening of the classes taking place at the time. Economically, they were the embodiment of the struggling lower and middle class. Politically, the farmers discontent did not go unnoticed as the two party system was disrupted by a surging new third party, the populists. The farmers discontent affected many parts of the American society at the time, and had a major effect on politics.

As a newborn nation, America had many tasks ahead of it, such as structuring a well functioning government, economy, and court system. Two men who had an extreme influence over these things were Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall. Both had brilliant ideas to bring forth and would eventually shape the nation to be a land of economic prosperity and fairness. Hamilton’s financial plan began the emergence of an economically superior country and ended in the creation of political parties that would change the face of the nation. John Marshall’s rulings resulted in precedents still followed today and interpreted the Constitution in a way that would transform the Judicial branch for the rest of history. Both of these men began the nation’s history in a way that is unparallel to most other leaders of the new nation.

From 1789 to 1816, the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans approached many problems differently, sometimes however, they had the same solutions to problems which were posed by England and the Native Americans. The Federalists and Democratic-Republicans both had different and sometimes similar viewpoints on how to solve the problems they faced during this particular time period. Federalists supported a strong, huge government that had a loose constriction of the constitution. They also supported the National Bank, exercise tax. Also, they thought tariffs should be high, and they believed in an industrial world filled with huge businesses and mass production of goods. However, the Democratic- Republicans wanted a more agrarian culture. They did not want a huge government, National bank, excise taxes, and they wanted the tariffs to be low. Some difficulties that the two parties faced were that the British created were impressments of sailors, assisting the Native Americans in war against the United States, and the Orders in Council of 1805. The Native Americans also generated problems for America because they resisted land expansion. Because of their standards and beliefs, this shows how the two parties faced these particular problems that were caused by Britain and the Native Americans. Therefore, the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans solved problems differently, but sometimes they had the same idea to work together in order to effectively fix both of the parties’

Living following the American Revolutionary times, Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay dominated in the country’s politics. According to Henry L. Watson in Andrew Jackson vs. Henry Clay: Democracy and Development in Antebellum America, the two men started out as prominent and “devoted” lawyers in the south, as well as owners of plant farms and “slaveholders” (Watson 1). Jackson and Clay also played major roles in the “creation of America’s two party system” during the growing tension over Democracy (Watson 1). As individuals, the men appealed greatly to the ordinary voters wants for America’s future as well as promoted economic development.

Northeastern Montana, during the early twentieth century, was plagued by a myriad of poor farming condition such as” hail, locusts, drought, and low commodity prices” according to McDonald. (McDonald, 20) The impecunious economic conditions created a support base of highly volatile and emotional of farmers that were ripe for political exploitation. Sheridan County’s farmers were desperate for dynamic political leadership that represented their best interests. Consequently, Charles E. Taylor and the Producers News were able to efficaciously fill this gap by increasing their popularity with farmers by utilizing the brilliant classist rhetoric that empowered and radicalized this community of farmers. McDonald stated that, “Taylor demonstrated

In the late 18th century, the United States of America faced many challenges such as foreign affairs and economic policy. Hamilton and Jefferson influenced these policies by incorporating their contrasting views in the context of allies and trading. Hamilton created many policies that solved many financial problems and helped shaped our nation. Although, the founding fathers such as Andrew Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson had opposing views on these subjects the main goal was to create a strong government.

As time passes and generations unfold the technological, political, and manufacturing industries are constantly advancing. Thomas Jefferson was the third president of the United States from 1801-1809. Thomas Jefferson’s ideology of the industrial aspects was vivid and clear that he was opposed to it. Jefferson wanted our society to remain an Agrarian society while producing raw materials in America and finalizing them in Europe. He directly relates to industry and the thought process of his plan in the “Notes on the State of Virginia” in 1781. Through the Notes on the State of Virginia, and several quotes regarding Jefferson’s thoughts on industry we see how Jefferson changed America for the future.

Hamilton and Jefferson both profound men with different upbringing and political agendas. Under George Washington there were both strong administration advisors. Jefferson won presidency in 1800 versus Hamilton both battling each other for different political agendas. Both founding fathers would disagree on how to constitution should be represented, bank charters, and how the nation’s growth would be obtained. In this composition, their political differences will be analyzed and contrasted.

Thomas Jefferson pictured an agrarian republic which is a nation of small family farms clustered together in rural communities. He envisioned a nation of roughly equal yeoman farmers, each secure of his own possessions as the perfect inhabitants for his agrarian republic. As it states on top of the painting on page 330, “The goal of the yeoman families was economic independence. Their mixed farming and grazing enterprises, supported by kinship and community ties, afforded them a self-sufficiency.” These are the characteristics that Jefferson wants in his perfect

In this paper, I will support Norman Wizba’s argument in the paper, “Why Agrariansim Matters---Even to Urbanites” that agrarianism is a world-view that integrates and sees the continuous limits and possibilities of the land and culture together. I will do so by providing examples supporting Wirzba’s premises such as the fundamental connection between the health of our culture and the health of our land. I will also provide examples, which support the importance of having information about our food system, as well as the harms of overusing our land and resources in order to produce technological advances. I will use the moral theory of virtue ethics to support my argument. According to the moral theory of virtue ethics, people should choose the action, which would promote the building of virtues in your moral character and avoid the vices. The action you should perform will vary depending on, who you are dealing with, who you are, when this action would take place, why you are choosing one action over another, and how you intend to perform this action. Virtue is a trait or a character of mind that are inside you, a natural impulse.

In this essay, I have two primary objectives. The first, and key objective, is to examine Adam Smith’s criticism of the Corn Laws. Smith argues that the Corn Laws are wrong on practical grounds, because he shows that enacting a free market system is much more effective at regulating the corn market by controlling prices and demand more efficiently; and through this he also introduces the moral dilemma with the corn laws; that the laws created an injustice on the people, in particular the farmers and dealers, because it does not allow them to work to their own advantage and self-interest; whereas people should have the right to trade freely. This will then follow on to my next discussion, where I deliberate what we can learn from Smith’s discussion on the moral limits of markets, i.e. the state should not intervene in the market, because doing so can create many moral problems.

American farmers found themselves facing hard times after the Civil War. In the West, the railroad had opened up enormous opportunities. Farmers were now able to cultivate land that had previously been to far from the Eastern markets to make a profit. However, that opportunity came at a price. The farmers increasing dependence on the railroads and other commercial