The Pros And Cons Of The Corn Laws: Thomas Malthus

Through the period of 1865-1900, America’s agriculture underwent a series of changes .Changes that were a product of influential role that technology, government policy and economic conditions played. To extend on this idea, changes included the increase on exported goods, do the availability of products as well as the improved traveling system of rail roads. In the primate stages of these developing changes, farmers were able to benefit from the product, yet as time passed by, dissatisfaction grew within them. They no longer benefited from the changes (economy went bad), and therefore they no longer supported railroads. Moreover they were discontented with the approach that the government had taken towards the situation.

Year by year the farmers who lived on soil, whose returns were diminished by unrotated crops were offered the virgin soil of the frontier at nominal prices. Their growing families demanded more lands, and these were dear. The competition of the unexhausted, cheap, and easily tilled prairie lands compelled the farmer either to go west and continue the exhaustion of the soil on a new frontier, or to adopt intensive culture.

Despite the flushed predictions of prosperity that had lured new settlers to the plains, the reality was more difficult. The farmers claimed that they did not have enough land, money, and transportation (Doc C). The farmers went into in a never ending cycle if they did not have a good harvest. As Booker Washington explains the farmers had no money so they had to borrow money from the banks which charged 12 to 30 percent interest. The interest the farmers were hit with was nearly impossible to repay so they had to mortgage everything and if the mortgage wasn’t paid the land was foreclosure which led the yeomen to become tenant farmers (Doc B). With periods of drought growing good crops was hard. Leading Economic Sectors shows how the farmers predicament of not being able to make a very

If one person came with a few servants, he would have more land to grow tobacco on, and more laborers to cultivate the tobacco. This means that this one person could make a large profit on tobacco, much larger than on corn. These people put most of their time into growing the tobacco, leading to a smaller amount of corn, the latter being a necessity. Fewer crops of corn lead to more people dying of malnutrition.

The history of corn can be dated back to the beginning of time, but the use and value of corn had been unnoticed until it was introduce by the Native Americans. Where corn had seemed to be a big part of their everyday life from, being in myths, legends, and for a huge portion of their diet corn was an essential component. "when the Europeans had touched base to the New World during the late fifteenth century, the Native Americans had introduced corn what they had called maize to the Europeans .This crop was then later on grown and adapted from Canada to southern South America very quickly, which then began to form the new basis of the New World civilization" (Leventin & McManhon, 2012). The way corn has been changing and revolutionizing throughout time has been both fascinating and drastic. Rather than conventional corn being grown, it is genetically modified corn that have been dominating today 's crop industry and farming but the question remains as to how the various types of GMO corn has influenced the way it is grown and used and what its ramification are.

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

In the period 1865-1900, technology, government policy, and economic conditions all changed American agriculture a great deal. New farming machinery had a large role in the late 19th century, giving farmers the opportunity to produce many more crops than they had ever been able to previously. The railroads had an enormous influence on agriculture. They were able to charge the farmers large fees, expenses that farmers barely had enough to cover, in order to transport their goods throughout the expansive country. The booming industry also changed American agriculture, creating monopolies and gaining incredible wealth with which the farmers simply could not compete. Economically, the monetary policy along with the steadily dropping prices of

The new technology used in American agriculture made it overall more productive and widespread while creating mixed results for the farmers. The advancement in machines like reapers, threshers, and mowers to harvest grains produced contrasting outcomes. An obvious benefit was some of the ease brought to the farmers. The human labor involved in harvesting grain by hand with a scythe or by a simple, one horse-powered machine was far greater than harvesting with a big, multi-horse powered machine. The devices made work simpler, faster, and more efficient for the farmers by relying on animal energy and technology (Document D). With promises of larger crops with less exertion, the new machines became very desirable to farmers in order to stay in competition with their peers; however, buying these machines also pushed many of them into unfortunate financial situations. Not only was the actual

It is important mention that lots of farmers did not own their land, even though the government had given out subsidies in states like Oklahoma. Instead, tenant farmers have to give "half of the net proceeds," to the owner of the land, as well as "sell," their crop at the owner's discretion. Document E also states additional nitty gritty types of costs the tenant has to pay the owner. As an effect, the tenants were making little to no money. This was the owner's way of essential making tenant farmers into slaves. To add to this, farmers are making a fraction on their crops in 1890, as they are in 1865. In the latter year, farmers make $2.16 per bushel. Meanwhile in 1900, they are making just 62 cents. The agricultural sector of the late 19th century is suffering what the oil industry is bracing today. An influx of product to the market, driving down prices, thus diminishing profits. Many go on to blame the government for giving out to many subsidies to farmers. Mary Elizabeth Lease, a political activists stresses how the government tells the people to go "work and raise a big crop." She then complains about the "eight-cent corn," and other cheap crops. Regardless, consumers are thriving while the producer is

Mark Twain, although quite the comedian, makes a valid point in “Corn-Pone Opinions”. The observation of humanity and its tendencies to follow what society promotes is a relevant occurrence today. Twain leads on “. . . that it’s born of the human being’s natural yearning to stand well with his fellows and have their inspiring approval and praise . . .” (720). Humans are not equipped to stand their own ground; they prefer to follow the leader. Twain puts it simply, “we are creatures of outside influences; as a rule we do not think, we only imitate” (719). Twain clearly makes his point noticeable to his audience, holding back no opinion throughout the

Corn is not the ideal nutritious food. It wreaks havoc on the animal;s' digestive system and gets turned into sweeteners that makes people obese, aside from giving us an unhealthy diet. In other words, the industrial food chain that American man is sustained on is largely based on corn, whether in its direct form, fed to livestock, or processed into chemicals such as glucose, and the cheapest forms of these are high-fructose corn syrup and ethanol. The former, particularly, through a combination of biological, cultural, and political factors, appears in the cheapest and most common of foods that constitute the American diet. It is the ingredient that results in obesity, and, since it appears in the cheapest products, the ingredients that more poor, than wealthier individuals, consume.

In 1890 clergyman Washington Gladden wrote an article called “The Embattled Farmers”. In it he blamed the ruin of the farmers on “protective tariffs, trusts…speculation in farm products, over-greedy middlemen, and exorbitant transportation rates.”

The Agrarian Standard, an essay written by Kentucky author Wendell Berry, was published in Citizenship Papers on January 1st, 2002. The book this essay was published in served as a response to 9/11 and a reflection of our country. Berry resides in Port Royal, Kentucky, where he lives with his wife Tanya. His family runs a non-profit organization focused towards practicing agrarianism: a social or political movement designed to bring about land reforms or to improve the economic status of the farmer (Merriam-Webster online dictionary.) Berry has been discussing his belief in agrarianism throughout his 45-year literary career, through poems (Sabbaths- 1979, IV), speeches (“It All Turns On Affection”), and essays such as this one.

As interpreted in “The Manse, The Manor and the Market: New Perspectives on the Medieval Agricultural Revolution” Grantham was more focused on agricultural development rather than any other innovation. Moreover, Clark believes that during the 1800s in Europe considered a nation that trapped under the Malthusian idea, which meant that new technology was being introduced, along with new ways of productivity. The constitutional point that George Grantham believes that the fundamental reason for the lack of market incentives was because Europe lacked proper political practice in the 1800s is more prevalent. In the early 19th century, Europe was not capable of having a stable monarchy, which led to less productivity. As the monarchy did not provide

Thomas Robert Malthus is one of the most controversial figures in the history of economics. He achieved fame chiefly from the population doctrine that is now closely linked with his name. Contrary to the late-eighteenth-century views that it was possible to improve people’s living standards, Malthus held that any such improvements would cause the population to grow and thereby reverse these gains. Malthus also sparked controversy with his contemporaries on issues of methodology (by arguing that economics should be an empirical rather than a deductive science), over questions of theory (by holding that economies can experience prolonged bouts of high unemployment), and on policy issues (by arguing against free