Agrarian Discontent 1880 To 1900
Essay Preview: Agrarian Discontent 1880 To 1900
Report this essay
Ben Boyd
AP US History
The period between 1880 and 1900 was a boom time for American Politics. The country was finally free of the threat of war, and many of its citizens were living comfortably. However, as these two decades went by, the American farmer found it harder and harder to live comfortably. Crops such as cotton and wheat, once the sustenance of the agriculture industry, were selling at prices so low that it was nearly impossible for farmers to make a profit off them. Furthermore, improvement in transportation allowed foreign competition to materialize, making it harder for American farmers to dispose of surplus crop. Mother Nature was also showing no mercy with grasshoppers, floods, and major droughts that led to a downward spiral of business that devastated many of the nation’s farmers. As a result of the agricultural depression, numerous farms groups, most notably the Populist Party, arose to fight what the farmers saw as the reasons for the decline in agriculture. During the final twenty years of the nineteenth century, many farmers in the United States saw monopolies and trusts, railroads, and money shortages and the loss in value of silver as threats to their way of life, all of which could be recognized as valid complaints.
The growth of the railroad was one of the most significant elements in American economic growth, yet it hurt small shippers and farmers in many ways. Extreme competition between rail companies necessitated some way to win business. To do this, railroads would offer rebates and drawbacks to larger shippers who used their rails. This practice hurt smaller shippers, including farmers, because often times railroad companies would charge more to ship products short distances than they would for long trips. This was known as the “long haul, short haul evil”. The rail companies justified this practice by asserting that if they did not rebate, they would not make enough profit to stay in business. So while the railroads felt that they must use this practice to make a profit, the farmers were justified in complaining, for they were seriously injured by it. A perfect example of this fact can be found in The Octopus by Frank Norris. In The Octopus a farmer named Dyke discovers that the railroad has increased their freight charges from two to five cents a pound. This new rate, “…ate up every cent of his gains. He stood there ruined.” (Document H) The railroads regularly used rebates and drawbacks to help win the business of large shippers, and made up this loss in profit by increasing the cost to smaller shippers such as farmers. The argument made by the railroads was that if they did not rebate, they would not make enough profit to stay in business. George W. Parker, vice president of the Cairo Short Line Railroad, as stated before the Senate Cullom Committee (Document G) reasserts all of the above mentioned, proving that the railroads did in fact end up charging farmers more, all in efforts to stay in business.
Competition became so vicious between the railroads that these companies tried to end it by establishing pools in order to divide the traffic equally and to charge similar rates. The pool lacked legal status, while the trust was a legal device that centralized control over a number of different companies by setting up a board of trustees to run all of them. As a result, many farmers, already hurt by the downslide in agriculture, were ruined. Thus, the farmers of the late nineteenth century had a valid complaint against railroad shippers since they were severely hurt by the unfair practices of the railroads.
The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 was passed to provide that a commission be established to oversee fair and just railway rates, prohibit rebates, end discriminatory practices, and require annual reports and financial statements. The act established a new agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, which allowed the government to investigate and oversee railroad activities. This in turn benefited the farmers but until this act was put in place farmers were strongly affected by the problems stated above.
Near the end of the nineteenth century, business began to centralize, leading to the rise of monopolies and trusts. Falling prices, along with the need for better efficiency in industry, led to the rise of companies, the Carnegie Steel and Standard Oil Company being one of the most significant. The rise of these monopolies and trusts concerned many farmers; for they felt that the disappearance of competition would lead to abnormally unreasonable price raises that would hurt consumers and ultimately themselves. James B. Weaver, the Populist party’s presidential candidate in the 1892 election, summed up the feelings of the many American Farmers of the period in his work, A Call to Action: An Interpretation of the Great Uprising (Document F). “It is clear that trusts are contrary to public policy and hence in conflict with the common law.”
Fearing that the trusts would stamp out all competition, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, which outlawed trusts and other restraints of trade. Violators were fined up to five thousand dollars and one year in prison. The Sherman Antitrust act, however, failed to define either trust or restraint of trade clearly. This was only a slight problem to the farmers because big businesses still continued to create