Killing Home Rule with Kindness

Labour disunity was a huge contributing factor as to why the conservatives were able to dominate from 1951 to 1964. However, there are also other factors that assisted conservative dominance. Whether that be conservative strengths, good timing, the end of austerity or their handle on public opinion, all factors contributed to the dominant years. However, how long the conservatives actually dominated is also a question. Did they dominate for the whole period, or just part of it? The years 1962-1964 question conservative dominance and how labour reunited.

In a bid to encourage people onto the Plains advertisements told success stories of those who had claimed land under the terms of the Homestead Act and had become successful. It divided 2.5 million acres of Plains land into sections or homesteads of 160 acres. People could now claim 160 acres of land. The only requirement on their part was that they paid a small charge and built a house or added something to the land such as a house or a well and lived on the land for at least 5 years.

Social policies often are based on the government’s philosophies and ideologies. In 19th century, Britain had the Laissez-faire approach which led the economic life. This meant that there was not government’s interference.

Any American including freed slaves could claim a land up to 160 acres for free if they worked on the land for 5 years (Doc. B). What this meant for the Native Americans was that they now have less land to hunt on so they are resorted to the reservations. Forty-eight million acres were given away. In 1872 there was an advertisement on the Homestead Act showing millions of acres in Iowa and Nebraska (Doc. E). Also in 1862, the Morrill Land-Grant Act was created to allow the creation of land-grant colleges in the US (Doc. C). It was a huge uplift to higher education in

The Populists took major issues with the capitalists and monopolies of the era. In their party’s platform (Document A), the Populists say that the land is “concentrated in the hands of the capitalists.” This prevented the small farmer from living the American Dream of building a successful life for himself and his family. A common view for farmers was expressed by James B. Weaver in 1892 (Document F), who believed that the monopolies of the era were “organized to destroy competition and restrain trade.” These large scale farms caused overproduction, causing an “alarming fall in the price of wheat (Document E).” This price fall caused a chain reaction of events that all had the same effect, small farmers being crippled by loss of income.

Cotton still played a big part in the growth of farming in the south. There was a high demand for textiles and cotton mills increased production of cotton bales up to 1,479,000 bales per year. While these changes were occurring in the South, many changes in farming were also taking place in other parts of the nation. The government wanted to encourage settlement in the vast areas of the country not yet populated. The Homestead Act helped shape the western landscape. This act allowed farmers to claim up to 160 acres of land. Farmers would stake a claim to a parcel of land and by living on it for five years would be free and clear to take title of the land. Or the farmer could buy

This period of Labour rule is often marked down as a poor performance on behalf of the labour party, critically looked upon by many historians. There were many failings under the rule of this government however the circumstances they were placed in caused severe restraints in their options.

As Document I shows Native Americans were being cheated out of their land, actually most of their land was being sold. In 1887, the Dawes Severalty Act was passed by congress. The Dawes act divided small plots for each family. But the farmers got their fill as well. On the reservation there were another 90 million acres which were fertile and was often sold to white settlers. As Native American lands went down White settlers land increased. As shown in Document B. Land trades and began to pop up all around the country.

Another problem with the voting system was the lack of a private vote. Employers could influence the way their employees voted by threatening to punish them if they failed to vote for their preffered candidate. This problem was fixed in 1872, when William Gladstone's government passed the Ballot Act which guaranteed a secret system of voting. Although the immediate results of the reform act were not earth shattering, the country had taken, as Lord Derby said, "a leap in the dark." Strikes, union advances, and labor organization were powerful forces for change in the final years of the century. William Gladstone was elected as Prime Minister of England for the second time in 1880 and the most important legislative action that took place during his second ministry was the Reform Act of 1884. The reform act was rejected the first time it was presented to the House of Lords, but accepted the second time because it was accompanied by a redistribution act, which had the following implications. "(i) seventy-nine towns with populations smaller than 15,000 lost their right to elect an MP; (ii) thirty-six with populations between 15,000 and 50,000 lost one of their MPs and became single member constituencies; (iii) towns with populations between 50,000 and 165,000 were given two seats; (iv) larger towns and the country constituencies were divided into single member constituencies" (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PR1885.htm). The actual Reform Act of 1884

It was originally opposed by Northern manufacturers, who feared the loss of inexpensive labor; and Southern slaveholders, who feared the development of free soil. It was intended to branch Western immigration, but numerous frontiersmen would fail and arrive home. The Homestead Act provided settlers with 160 acres of surveyed public land. By living on the property for five years and improving it, a small fee would grant the settler the land. This served as a way to encourage the development of the family farm and fill in the normally unoccupied region in the Great Plains in which railroads facilitated this growth. Because of the severe environmental circumstances of the Great Plain region, the Homestead Act turned out to be less effective than anticipated.

The American Government did their part in encouraging farmers to venture out into the Great Plains. Back during the Civil War, political parties battled with deciding whether to promote the west as proslave or anti-slave; officials would send citizens of their party to claim residence in western territories to populate the newly forming states with enough supporters to strengthen their power in Congress, in this particular debate. Later in the 1800s, regulations and accommodations were passed to make obtaining land cheaper and transportation more efficient. One of these regulations, developed and supported by Abraham Lincoln, was the Homestead Act of 1862. Under this law, any citizen could claim up to 160 acres from the government if they promise to improve the land. Costing close to nothing, many small farm owners saw

Now that thousands of people had claimed their 160 acres, the government had to sustain the land's fertility so it would remain cultivatable for years to come. It would also reduce any chances of the settlers moving again and coming in conflict with the Natives. The government encouraged the development of the area by constantly aiding the frontiers with the Timber Culture Act and the Newland Reclamation Acts. The Timber Culture Act was produced to help the farmers successfully grow crops on their land for long periods of time by keeping the soil fertile and preventing erosion. The Timber Culture Act gave away free land to people who would plant forty acres of trees on it. They believed planting more trees would increase humidity and increase rainfall, which was beneficial for farmers. The Newland Reclamation Act of 1902 funded irrigation projects for the dry land of the west. Congress passed many laws to protect the west from harm.

This essay will examine the impact of the Conservative party during their period in office between 1951 and 1964. The assessments by historians of these thirteen years vary widely as the Conservative rule left behind a mixed feeling about its achievements. We will therefore be discussing to what extent their period in office can be described as “thirteen years wasted”, based on their performances in the political, economic and social sectors.

The period of 1830-1931 saw gradual yet largely significant governmental reforms which led to an extension of the franchise from 500,000 to around 21 million. Prior to 1832, Britain’s franchise composed of a selective elite of the landowning class, however the 1832 reform act, although a disappointment in the extent of what it achieved, paved the way for further reform as it brought people together in rebellion (the Bristol Riots). This proved that popular pressure had the potential to be very successful in orchestrating parliamentary reform. The influence of pressure from outside parliament was

With many farmers having such high yields, there was an abundance of crops so the prices fell and a farmer had to plant more in order to have enough money to support their families. The Enlarged Homestead Act guaranteed 320 acres of land to farmers who were willing to take land that were considered to be marginal and could not be irrigated well. They plowed up the virgin soil and planted acres and acres of golden wheat, leaving the land vulnerable to the elements after the yearly harvest. The farmers also implemented the use of fossil fuel ran machinery that made it easier to plow up hundreds of acres in a short period of time, which exposed even more soil than what would have been open to the elements had the farming been done by an animal pulled plow. The massive influx of farmers because of that act caused major soil erosion which was made worse by the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.