| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebTopicList" |
|---|
-- ZebulunJohnson - 12 Jan 2017 | |
<
< | Breaking the Soil | >
> | Introduction | | | | |
>
> | As far back as Revolution, Americans have been concerned about labor displacement. This concern often manifests as fear directed against the “other”, as evidenced by the antebellum fear about competition from slaves on the frontier, the Chinese exclusion act of the early 20th century, and the anti-immigrant and anti-globalism rhetoric of the early 2000s. Beginning in postbellum America, however, a new fear developed which paralleled the fear of the other: the fear of the machine. | | | | |
<
< | Part 1: The Rise of the Horse in the 19th Century
Introduction | >
> | In 1914, the Department of Agriculture (DoA? ) released a report entitled “Mechanization of Agriculture as a Factor in Labor Displacement.” In this report, the DoA? reviews the innovations in farming techniques which occurred the American Agro-Industrial Revolution of the 19th Century, examines these techniques’ impact on labor, and offers a foreboding conclusion: “Unless the nonagricultural industries can be expanded sufficiently to provide for [these] workers…[they] will become competitors for the jobs now held by nonagricultural workers, or will be added to the ranks of the unemployed.” With the benefit of a hundred years of hindsight, we now recognize that the “nonagricultural industries” did sufficiently expand and that America successfully birthed an industrial society from an agrarian society. However, this transition did occur painlessly. | | | | |
<
< | In 1825, Senator William Findlay of Pennsylvania submitted a resolution for the establishment of a Senate Committee on Agriculture. (BHoSCA? 10). Senator Findlay argued that, as the Senate had already approved the creation of committees for Commerce and Manufacturers, it was only appropriate that Agriculture receive equal attention as one of the “three great branches of domestic industry.” (BHoSCA? 10). Senator Findlay was persuasive, and the Resolution was adopted, beginning the official recognition of the importance of agriculture in the American tradition and economy. | >
> | This paper will examine the consequences of laws which encourage rapid automation in a short period of time. By examining the rise and fall of the horse in America, I hope to paint a picture of a staple of American life, and outline the consequences of removing that staple within the span of a few years. | | | | |
<
< | At the time of Senator Findlay’s proposal, farming had changed remarkably little from colonial times, or even from the times of the ancient Romans. Until 1833, practically all farm work, excepting plowing and harrowing, was done manually. (PoRE? 84). Although some farm implements were of better quality than others—the Dutch were noted for having “superior” tools over the English (MoL? 751)—with the exception of the quality of livestock and crops, the actual tools of farming had seen only minor changes over the course of nearly 4000 years. (Id.) Until the 19th century, grain was planted, harvested, threshed, and winnowed manually, either by hand, with hand tools, or with minimal help from farm animals. Similarly, row crops were planted by hand, cultivated by hoe, and harvested by hand. | >
> | The horse, from pre-revolution times, exemplified the American. I have picked the horse as an illustration of the dangers of automation because it serves a dual purpose: it shows what happens to the tools when they are no longer needed, and it shows what happens to the workers when they are no longer needed to work the tools. Although it is obvious that, given the mechanical innovations which occurred in the 20th century, the horse would have been replaced eventually, the rapidity with which the horse disappeared from American life is due in large part to government intervention. The fall of the horse in America and the immediate and massive labor displacement which followed, did not occur due to "natural" economic or technological change over time.
Notes
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | However, beginning in 1833, there was an explosion of new farm technology in America, particularly in the Northern and Western states. This disparity of development between New England and the South occurred because of a variety of factors, the largest of which were the quality of the land, the demand for labor, and the crops produced. Compared with the cheap, arable land of the Southern states, New England agriculture, as well as the agriculture of the Great Plains, was relatively labor intensive. (MoL? 752). In the Western states, frontier development required a constant demand for efficiency whereas in slavery, the South had a labor supply which required a heavy initial investment but nominal upkeep. (PoRE? 95). Further, Southern crops did not easily lend themselves towards automation: Apart from the cotton gin, the cotton industry did not realize the full benefits of mechanization until the 1950s, and tobacco today still requires much manual labor. (PoRE? 93). In contrast, the wheat fields and row crops of the Northern and Western States lent themselves nicely to automation, although row crops did not benefit from mechanized harvesting until the 1930s. | >
> | Today, there is some ambiguity as to how to apply this tale to ourselves. Are we the horse? Are we the workers? Only time will tell. But in an age of teachable robot laborers, we need to ensure that if our current legal framework incentivizes automation, then our society should have strategies for relocating displaced workers. | | | | |
<
< | This environment proved ideal for the invention and adoption of horse-powered machinery. Over the course of the 19th century, horse-powered machinery would disrupt millennia-old forms of farming by providing far more efficient methods of farming than had before been possible. This machinery would become widely adopted in the North and spread quickly westward towards the plains, and by the turn of the 20th century, nearly every task associated with grain cultivation, many tasks associated with row crop cultivation, and some tasks associated with cash crop cultivation were performed primarily by horse-powered machinery. (PoRE? 87). This widespread adoption of horse-power in the Northern and Western states resulted in a steady increase in the amount of horses on farms which persisted until the introduction of the tractor in 1918. Even then, horses remained the primary source of power on farms until WWII. (AAiTC? XX). | >
> | In the first section, I briefly explain how the horse came to be seen as a symbol of American Agriculture, I outline the huge increases in efficiency that occurred during the American agro-industrial revolution, and I then explain the effects this increase in efficiency had on the labor force in the North and the South. I also explain that the resulting displaced labor in the North was absorbed by either westward expansion or increased industrial jobs, and that the South experienced very little displacement during this time, as their tenant farming system prevented were content with their tenant farming system. This section is important because it shows that the Horse was not just another easily replaceable tool, it was literally one of the foundations of American life. | | | | |
<
< | In 1898, the Commissioner of Labor concluded that “one man with the improved machinery…can cultivate and harvest nearly twice as large a crop” of any type of crop, as had been previously possible. (MoL? 756). The work of the American farmer in 1900 was drastically different from the work of the American farmer in 1800, due primarily to the transformation of agriculture from man-power to horse-power. It is this remarkable transformation that this section will focus on, though an examination of the most important horse-powered machinery at work in the 19th century. The following subsections are divided by the principal tasks of a farmer: the preparation of the soil, the planting of seeds, the harvest, and (in the case of grains) threshing and winnowing. Each of these subsections will deal briefly with the historical method of performing the task, and then examine the 19th century technological changes which resulted in a horse-powered method replacing the historical method. By doing so, this section will give explain how horse-powered machinery transformed agriculture in the 19th century. | >
> | In the second section, I examine the introduction of mechanical power into American Agriculture. In the North, the farms were relatively small, and the displaced labor had been absorbed by either migration into new territories, or into industrialized cities. In the South, although the most educated individuals had left the black belt, there was still a large concentration of unskilled black workers due to the plantation-based tenant-farming system. In response to government subsidies, these workers were replaced with tractors. This replacement of workers was one of the largest contributors to the start of the great migration. By tracing this response, and outlining the factors that which led to this response, I hope to show the concerns posed by government subsidized automation. | | | | |
>
> | In the final section, I compare this historic lesson of automation to the current challenges of automation we face today and the primary way in which we currently subsidize automation – through capital asset taxation. I then look at one industry which is expected to become primarily automated in the next two decades--the transportation industry--and examine the lack of available markets which could potentially absorb these ~3million individuals due the limitations on global movement.
Notes
:
| | | | |
<
< | Breaking the Soil
The initial task performed by farmers in the course of cultivating crops is preparation of a field utilizing a plow. A plow is composed of a hard object called a share which is stuck into the earth and then dragged through the field to create trenches in the soil called furrows. Also attached to the plow are flat boards called moldboards which overturn the soil. By overturning the soil, fresh nutrients are brought to the surface, and decomposable detritus such as weeds or previous crop remains are buried. Plows are attached to a form of power through a mechanism called a coupling. Today, tractors perform the task of plowing, but until the mid-19th century, the plow remained remarkably similar to the plow used in ancient times. (MoL? 752). | >
> | Part 1: The Rise of the Horse in America | | | | |
<
< | The plow dates as far back as ancient Egypt: Egyptian bas-reliefs show a slave guiding two oxen drawing a wooden pronged implement, the longer prong attached to the oxen and the shorter prong digging in the soil. (MoL? 752). The wooden lower prong, the share, often broke, so the Egyptians began covering it in a hard cover made of flint. (AA 5). Over time, this technique of hardening the shares spread, and the plows mentioned biblically and by the Greek poets Herodotus and Homer were made of iron. (MoL? 752). The largest innovation to the plow before the 18th century came from the ancient Romans, who added a primitive moldboard to move the disturbed soil. (AA 5). This Roman plow was the basic plow design used in the Western World until 1730, when English inventors created moldboards which would fully flip the disturbed soil, rather than simply moving it. (AA 5). | | | | |
<
< | After 1730, the fundamental design of the plow remained remarkably similar until the end of the century [Footnote 1], when Charles Newbold patented the first cast-iron moldboard. Although this new moldboard created a huge gain in productivity [Footnote 2], because it was cast in one piece it proved too expensive to repair; any damage to the moldboard would require a complete replacement. (MoL? 754). Over the next three decades, American inventors tinkered with the design of the plow [Footnote 3], and Jethro Wood fixed the defect in the Newbold plow by patenting a plow cast in sections, which allowed replacement of worn parts. After Wood’s sectional plow, an avalanche of different plow designs followed, with 186 plow patents being issued by 1870. (MoL? 754). [Footnote 4]. | | | | |
<
< | By 1855 the patents shifted focus from the design of the plow itself to the design of the coupling, improving the “hook-up” of the plow to a power source. At this point in time, the primary labor savings came from the ability to increase the amount of power, allowing for multiple plows to be pulled at once, at the same time.(754). The largest of these hook-ups allowed for twenty-horse outfits which could plow a strip of land with a width of up to 60 feet. (MoL? 755). | >
> | The Antebellum Horse and Mule | | | | |
<
< | //[Transition from Ox plowing to Horse plowing. The transition became noticeable ~post-civil war. Is this because horses proved more adaptable to these types of couplings? Were the primary patents for horses? Which were the most popular patents? Did they work well for both horses & oxen, but some other form(s) of mechanized labor increase horse utility? Did something happen to the ox population during the civil war?] | >
> | Unlike the vast herds of wild horses descended from Spanish stock which freely roamed the Laramie plains of the West, the vast majority of horses and mules in the original thirteen colonies traced their ancestors back to Great Britain. That many of the animals survived the journey across the Atlantic is itself something of a miracle, as the European ocean-vessels of the time were not designed for the shipment of livestock, and horses in particular found the voyage deadly. Severe rationing of food and water, storms, infection, panic made the journey itself perilous, but the disembarking process was often lethal as well. Until 1750, all livestock shipped between Europe and the Americas’ during this time were disembarked via the “jump and swim for it” method. This method consistent of pushing and kicking livestock overboard, and hoping that the bruised animals would make it safely to shore. Everything told, the survival rate of horses during the transatlantic crossing was roughly 50-75%.
Notes
:
:
,:
| | | | |
<
< | [Footnote 1 - Although the size and shape of the plow varied depending on the area being developed and the crop to be sown, and although plows were sometimes reinforced with strips of iron,]
[Footnote 2 – Metal moldboards increased the amount of dirt which could be moved, the depth at which it could be moved, and required less effort for low-quality/hard soil. This was particularly useful in the Northeast]
[Footnote 3 - In 1814 the plows gain the curved moldboards , the design of which is still used today to those used today]
[Footnote 4 - It was also during this period that John Deere first entered the agricultural spotlight by patenting a plow with a steel share made of mill blades. (AmAg? 6). The steel share easily scoured the dirt, and this feature of teel became crucial for plowing the sticky soil of the Midwest. (AmAg? 6).]
[Footnote 5 - Iowa, representing the median labor requirement, required 4.1 man-hours per acre with a three-horse plow; 3.1 man-hours with a 4-horse plow; and 1.6 man-hours with a 5-horse plow. Western states such as Washington saw further economy of labor, whereas New England states such as New York saw less. (MoL754? -755)] | >
> | These dismal survival rates make the future importance of these animals to the American way of life all the more impressive, because very few horses were shipped from Britain in the first place. For example, by 1640 the Massachusetts Bay Colony had only shipped two hundred horses from Great Britain, despite a migration of nearly 16,000 individuals as well as their thousands of other livestock. This dearth of horse importation in the colonies arose primarily from the traditions the colonists brought with them to America. The feudal environment from which they had fled had instilled in the colonists the conviction that horses “belong to the gentry.” Further, contrary to other animals the colonists might raise, there was no purpose for which the common man might raise horses, as the English tradition declared the horse unsuitable for food, and there was no market for horse leathers at the time.
Notes
,:
:
| | | | |
>
> | The Northern Colonies | | | | |
<
< | Planting Drills | >
> | Pragmatism won the day in the Northern colonies within only a few decades. By 1653, there had been such a large increase in the horse population in the New England colonies that the Dutch West India Company advised prospective immigrants that “[horses] can be got at reasonable expense from the English who have plenty of them.” This initial rapid increase in the population of horses was due to the terrain and winters of New England. As compared to the customary pack animal of oxen, horses proved much speedier on the narrow forest trails of the area, and more aptly dealt with the snowdrifts and frozen waterways during the severe winters. In this way horses became much more accepted and utilized by the Northern commoner.
Notes
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | Unlike the plow, until 1840 seed planting had, with few exceptions, always been done by hand. Prior, grain seeds were broadcast—meaning they were scattered by hand and then raked over—whereas row seeds were dropped by hand into prepared rows. In the 19th century, however, this process was mechanized through the advent of the drill.
For row crops drills, the drills utilized wheels with different sized holes designed for different types of seeds. When the drill was drawn by horse, the drill wheel would rotate, which would drop different varieties of seeds in checkerboard patterns with different spacing. These drills represented enormous labor savings for farmers: in 1850 it took 13.8 man-hours per acre to plant corn, whereas in 1894 it took 3.6 man-hours. | >
> | A secondary incentive for horse breeding in the Northern colonies arose through the demand for horses in the sugar plantations of the West Indies, Work horses were wanted to power the sugar mills, and saddle horses were wanted to carry plantation overseers on inspection trips. This export trade became so important that ships were designed specifically for the transportation of horses, and it led to the establishment of stud farms across Rhode Island and Connecticut. Because the West Indies horse trade increased each year, more farmers began raising horses to sell, hoping to earn a large profit and in the process making horses more affordable. For the first time, the thievery of horses became a great concern to lawmakers, and extensive regulations were put in place to prevent it.
Notes
,:
:
| | | | |
<
< | Grain drills were dragged by horses and consisted machinery holding three bins: one bin was filled with grain seed, one was filled with fertilizer, and one was filled with grass seed. The drill would make a small furrow in which to place the seeds, then feed the seeds at the proper rate into a funnel leading into the furrow, and then cover the furrow with soil and fertilizer. Grain drills introduced even larger labor savings than row crop drills, and this design is still the principal design used in agriculture today. Drills of both kinds became available for purchase in 1840, but widespread usage did not occur until 1870. | >
> | Although horses were becoming more affordable, they were still of limited use for on the Northern farm. Once characteristic of Northern agriculture from colonial times to the antebellum period was the farm’s self-sufficiency, meaning that most of the farm’s production was for home consumption, and only the excess was sold commercially. One oft-repeated caricature of the Northern farm from this time period is that “[f]rom his feet to his head the farmer stood in vestment produced on his own arm… How little he bought, and how much he contrived to supply his wants by home manufacture would astonish…” This self-sufficient nature of the Northern Farmer meant that the average farmer had little use for a horse when an oxen could be obtained at a lesser cost. While a relatively prosperous farmer held ‘four negro servants, 50 heads of cattle, 800 sheep and 30 to 40 horses,’ a less prosperous farmer would have but one or two oxen in lieu of horses. Until the mid-19th century, horses were primarily used for travel or trade rather than as power on the farm, yet even so, their use was slowly becoming more ubiquitous.
Notes
:
:
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | Once planted, the row crops needed to be weeded. Until the 19th century, this process was done by hand and hoe. However, the difficulty of weeding vast tracts of corn, cotton and tobacco gave great incentive for the development of a mechanical weeder. In 1820, farmers because utilizing horse-drawn plow cultivators. These were plows which had multiple teeth of variable width. By aligning the teeth between the rows, farmers could remove almost all the weeds except those actually in the row. | >
> | The Southern Colonies | | | | |
>
> | While the Northern colonies were quick to adopt the horse to their needs, English traditions prevailed for much longer in the South. Horses remained the privilege of the “genteel,” and it was rare to see anyone other than plantation owners, overseers, or jockeys riding them. The law reinforced these traditions, both overtly by outlawing the riding of horses by slaves and indirectly by passing laws imputing liability on slave-owners if a horse were to damage another man’s slave.
Notes
:
| | | | |
<
< | Harvest | >
> | Although popular imagination holds that the Southern agriculture had been dominated since colonial times by extravagant mansions covering large plantations with numerous slaves, in fact the slight majority of Southern farmers lived similarly to their northern brethren: on self-sufficient smaller farms.
Notes
:
| | | | |
<
< | Although there were innovations in soil preparation and seeding, no aspect of the process saw greater labor gains than harvesting grains. For nearly all crops, harvesting was the most labor-intensive part of crop production. Harvesting grains involved cutting the stalks, separating the grains, and removing the chaff. Until the mid-nineteenth century, farmers did each of these tasks manually, using methods which had not substantively changed in thousands of year: the farmer would cut the grain by hand, bind and store the grain to let it dry, beat the dried stalks to separate the grain, then throw the separated grain on windy days to remove the chaff. | >
> | Over the course of 200 years, the South’s economy would focus primarily on the production of cash crops of the world market, and it was not until after the revolution that Southern farmers found themselves needing power other than slave labor. This need was driven by the invention of the cotton gin in 1793, as hundreds of thousands of acres unsuitable for tobacco were suddenly valuable as “prime cotton land.” However, clearance of the land, as well as the strenuous tasks of hauling cotton bales, required disease-resistant and durable animals. For this task, the mule, and not the horse, was chosen as the perfect source of power.
Notes
:
,:
| | | | |
<
< | By the turn of the century, the labor involved in harvesting grain had been reduced by a factor of fifty. This gave the US a considerable advantage in the global wheat market, and mechanization was viewed as primary source of this advantage. So great was the perceived threat of American mechanization to skilled laborers that there were riots and destruction of imported American machines in England. Although there were some innovations for the harvest of row and cash crops, the major disruptions in harvest of row and cash crops did not occur until the mid-twentieth century. | >
> | Although horses and oxen were used for a short period, the “callous indifference of most ‘cotton operators’ toward the welfare of their slaves and their livestock made horse power and ox power too expensive.” Not only could mules endure the harsh conditions of the cotton fields, but they could also subsist on the leavings of seeds and lint left over from the cotton ginning process. President George Washington also personally endorsed the mule as the animal of choice, and went to great efforts to introduce the mule into Southern agriculture. Although the mule had been introduced for its hardiness, it was soon lauded for its other qualities, and by the time of the Civil War the mule had become a staple of Southern Agriculture.
Notes
:
:
:
:
| | | | |
>
> | The Transition from Human Power to Horse Power | | | | |
<
< | Pre-Mechanized Harvest | >
> | In 1825, Senator William Findlay of Pennsylvania submitted a resolution for the establishment of a Senate Committee on Agriculture. Senator Findlay argued that, as the Senate had already approved the creation of committees for Commerce and Manufacturers, it was only appropriate that Agriculture receive equal attention as one of the “three great branches of domestic industry.” Senator Findlay was persuasive, and the Resolution was adopted, beginning the official recognition of the importance of agriculture in the American tradition and economy.
Notes
,:
| | | | |
<
< | For cutting the stalks of grain, the oldest harvesting tools are the sickle and the scythe, whose origin dates back to the Ancient Babylonians. In fact, until the 17th century the only substantive developments of these basic tools were the type of metal used, the curve of the blade, and the thickness of the blade. In the seventeenth century, the most widely used grain harvesting implement was the English sickle. The blade on this sickle was serrated on one edge of a curved blade set almost at a right angle to a short handle. To use the sickle, the reaper would grab a handful of grain in one hand and would then cut that handful with his sickle. As the reaper did so, he would pull the grain forward into the crook of his arm. This process would repeat until the harvester could carry no more grain in his arm. Although it seems simple in theory, in execution it required a great deal of skill, and prior to horse-powered machinery, wheat harvesting was considered skilled labor and had corresponding increased pay. | >
> | At the time of Senator Findlay’s proposal, farming had changed remarkably little from colonial times, or even from the times of the ancient Romans. Until 1833, practically all farm work, excepting plowing and harrowing, was done manually. Although some farm implements were of better quality than others—the Dutch were noted for having “superior” tools over the English—with the exception of the quality of livestock and crops, the actual tools of farming had seen only minor changes over the course of nearly 4000 years. Until the 19th century, grain was planted, harvested, threshed, and winnowed manually, either by hand, with hand tools, or with minimal help from farm animals. Similarly, row crops were planted by hand, cultivated by hoe, and harvested by hand.
Notes
:
,:
| | | | |
<
< | In contrast, the scythe was a larger implement which, through a double bend in its handle, was used while standing to cut larger swathes in the grain field, leaving the stalks for others to collect. It wasn’t until 1827 that the sickle/scythe was improved upon, when Charles Vaughn created the American cradle by adding “fingers” to the scythe which vertically matched the blade. This innovation allowed harvesters to cut large swaths while simultaneously collecting the grain on the fingers. The Vaughn cradle, at its lowest estimate, improved efficiency by nearly 300 percent over the scythe method. This was the preferred tool of farmers until the mechanized reaper saw widespread usage after the Civil War. | >
> | However, beginning in 1833, there was an explosion of new farm technology in America, particularly in the Northern and Western states. This disparity of development between New England and the South occurred because of a variety of factors, the largest of which were the quality of the land, the demand for labor, and the crops produced. Compared with the cheap, arable land of the Southern states, New England agriculture, as well as the agriculture of the Great Plains, was relatively labor intensive. In the Western states, frontier development required a constant demand for efficiency whereas in slavery, the South had a labor supply which required a heavy initial investment but nominal upkeep. Further, Southern crops did not easily lend themselves towards automation: Apart from the cotton gin, the cotton and tobacco industry did not realize the full benefits of mechanization until the early 20th century. In contrast, the wheat fields and row crops of the Northern and Western States lent themselves nicely to automation.
Notes
:
| | | | |
<
< | Reapers | >
> | The environment of the North and later the West proved ideal for the invention and adoption of horse-powered machinery. Over the course of the 19th century, horse-powered machinery would disrupt millennia-old forms of farming by providing far more efficient methods of farming than had before been possible. This machinery would become widely adopted in the North and spread quickly westward towards the plains, and by the turn of the 20th century, nearly every task associated with grain cultivation, many tasks associated with row crop cultivation, and some tasks associated with cash crop cultivation would be performed primarily by horse-powered machinery. This widespread adoption of horse-power in the Northern and Western states resulted in a steady increase in the amount of horses on farms which persisted until the introduction of the tractor in 1918. Even then, horses remained the primary source of power on farms until WWII.
Notes
:
:
| | | | |
>
> | In 1898, the Commissioner of Labor concluded that “one man with the improved machinery…can cultivate and harvest nearly twice as large a crop” of any type of crop, as had been previously possible. The work of the American farmer in 1900 was drastically different from the work of the American farmer in 1800, due primarily to the transformation of agriculture from man-power to horse-power. It is this remarkable transformation that this section will focus on, though an examination of the most important horse-powered machinery at work in the 19th century. The following subsections are divided by the principal tasks of a farmer: the preparation of the soil, the planting of seeds, the harvest, and (in the case of grains) threshing and winnowing. Each of these subsections will deal briefly with the historical method of performing the task, and then examine the 19th century technological changes which resulted in a horse-powered method replacing the historical method.
Notes
:
| | | | |
<
< | The McCormick? reaper, patented in 1833, consisted of an oscillating cutter bar which would drop grain onto a sled. The reaper was guided by a horse walking alongside. Although innovative, this first reaper suffered from too many defects for its usage to become widespread. First, apart from the price of the machine, the reaper’s parts were too delicate to be used in any but the mildest of conditions, as an unseen rock or branch often caused the reaper to break down. Second, the early versions of the reaper did not drastically reduce labor. The cut grain still had to be raked off the sled and hand-bound. Despite these shortcomings, this first reaper represented a new era of grain harvest, and the following fifty years saw a revolution in the harvesting of wheat. | >
> | [Truncated Version of Earlier Paper on Mechanical Innovations] | | | | |
<
< | One of the earliest additions to the reaper was the automatic raker in 1858. This consisted of a canvas on rollers which would place the grain on a platform where workers could easily gather the grain into bundles. This became a standard feature of the reaper as early as 1864. The 1870s saw the addition of an automatic bundling mechanism, but it used wire which often resulted in the injury or death of workers and livestock. In the 1880s, reapers replaced wires with twine through a device called a binder. By 1890, the usage of reapers had improved harvest efficiency by another 300 percent. | >
> | [“The generation span between 1830 and 1850 marked the American farmers’ transfer from wood and leather tools, usually homemade, to iron tools that were factory-made.” These new tools had to be purchased with either trade goods and either cash or credit. Grain-Reaping machines first appeared between 1832 and 1840, and the first patents for disk harrows, grain drills, grain binders, and threshing machines were granted between 1840 and 1850. A series of inventions between 1830 and 1850 also led to a transition from wooden beam plows to armor-steel moldboard plows. This increased technology led to farms doubling in size from the time of the Revolution. “Fifteen years ago…the writer required twenty men to cultivate properly a yard of thirty acres; now, by the use of a few judiciously chosen horse tools, he cultivates many times that area, with but eight farm-hands, four of whom are boys.”] | | | | |
<
< | While the binder and reaper combination remained the pinnacle of grain harvest invention until after WWII in the Eastern US, the drier parts of the country preferred a mechanism called a header. In specifically California, Oregon, and Washington, the mechanism used had the same fundamental concept as the reaper, but was instead pushed from behind, and they utilized special wagons to move the cut grain to stationary threshing machines. Because the climate was so dry, the binding and drying phase in the harvest cycle could be skipped completely. | >
> | [The replacement of the ox by the draft horse - Robert 170] | | | | |
>
> | Movement of Labor in the 19th Century | | | | |
<
< | Threshing | >
> | [Northern shift from subsistence to Industry & large-scale farming through Civil War & Trade] | | | | |
<
< | Until the early 18th century, grain still needed to be threshed manually after it had dried. This was done by either trampling the grain with animals, or beating the grain with flails. The flail was essentially two wooden rods attached by a chain or strip of leather. The farmer would beat the grain with one end of the flail to loosen the husks. Afterwards, the farmer would winnow the grain by exposing it to wind, which would blow the chaff away. By 1870, both threshing and winnowing were nearly fully mechanized in the US. | >
> | [Southern Transformation into Tenant-Farming System] | | | | |
<
< | Shortly before the advent of reapers, stationary threshing machines appeared in the US. These machines utilized either horse-powered flailing devices, or revolving rollers with teeth and spurs. Over time, the latter came to dominate the agricultural landscape. However, these machines did nothing to separate the chaff from the grain. For this purpose, winnowing machines were used. Invented contemporaneously with the threshing machines, these machines operated by pouring the wheat and chaff onto vibrating mesh screens, below which operated a fan. The vibrations would cause the chaff to rise to the top, and the fan would blow the chaff away. The leftover grain would be utilized on the farm or sold. | >
> | [At the turn of the Century, 8/10 people were still employed in some way with farms.] | | | | |
<
< | In 1844, the first combination thresher/winnower was placed on the market by J. I. Case. This stationary machine operated by utilizing the power of a team of up to 8 horses to power rollers for threshing and screens/fans for winnowing. The clean grain was then sent through a chute to be collected. This machine dominated the agricultural landscape until 1880, when the entire machine was placed on wheels, and the horses were replaced by a steam engine. These new mobile machines required at least five people to operate, but larger teams were necessary to ensure maximum utility. These new mobile machines—dragged either by a team of horses or self-propelled—disrupted the individualistic/familial nature of grain farming which had been in place since colonial times, and replaced it with a specialized industry form not before seen. | >
> | The Fall of the Horse in America
WWI | | | | |
<
< | Combination threshing/winnowing machines were exorbitantly expensive. It was impossible for the average farmer at the time to afford these types of machines. Even if they could, there were only a select number of farms which would have used the machines enough to justify the cost. However, the productivity gains could not be ignored. To this end, agriculture saw the birth of its first real specialization: customized threshers. Custom threshers purchased their own machines and traveled from farm to farm during the harvest season, offering their services for either cost of a portion of the grain. The threshers would normally visit the same farms year after year, and by 1900, they had become a staple in agricultural life. | >
> | [Need to do a lot more research, but I believe that essentially WWI forced industrialization, there was cultural difficulty in returning to an urban environment (Now that they've seen Paris), and these together increased the average size of the farms in both the North and South. North had massive industry shift, South not so much.] | | | | |
>
> | From Animal Power to Mechanical Power | | | | |
>
> | [Brief outline of tractor's invention, the fear it represented for farmers, and the exorbitant cost] | | | | |
>
> | [Tractors became available for purchase ~1910.] | | | | |
>
> | [Rural Political Power in the 20s led to expansion of credit. Still too costly for most farmers.] | | | | |
>
> | [New Deal Subsidies for Farmers led to widespread affordability; the real price of tractors did not decrease too much as compared to the average farmer income] | | | | |
>
> | Effects of Mechanical Power on Workers; The Great Migration | | | | |
<
< | The horse-powered machinery introduced in the 19th century would have long-lasting effects which would not be fully realized until the 1920s and 1930s. At the turn of the century, the future of the common farmer seemed optimistic. The New York Times reported in 1899 that, “The farmer, the miller, the stockman, and all classes engaged in like industries are reaping the benefits that flow from bounteous harvests and good prices.” Indeed, the 20th century would bring many benefits for America’s farmers: an increasingly accessible global market, the creation of national infrastructure which reached rural areas, and of course, the government regulation during the New Deal era. However, it seems that these benefits could not compete with the labor displacement introduced by the machinery of the 1800s—up to 80 percent of farm workers were made redundant in some areas of the agricultural economy. The difficulty created by this labor displacement was compounded by WW1, followed by the Dust Bowl and the Depression. Although it was thought for most of the 19th century that agrarian necessities would continue to grow with the population, the opposite has proven true. Today, we have nearly five times the population of 1900, yet we have only a third of the farms. Further research in plant biology, soil health, and further improvements on technology led to a 1% increase in production of acre of land per year pre-WWII, and a 2% increase thereafter. In order to understand the complexity of these economic, governmental, and technological changes which occurred in the 20th century, however, it is necessary to understand the mechanical revolution which occurred on America’s farms during the 19th century. | >
> | [Mechanical power percentage of work done in agriculture-- 1915: ~3%; 1920: ~5%; 1925: ~10%; 1930: ~20%; 1935: ~20%; 1940: ~33%; 1945: ~51%; 1950: ~70%] | | | | |
>
> | [Thanks to WWI, Northern Workers had already mostly transitioned to industry.] | | | | |
<
< | Sources
(For some reason, my sources aren't uploading. This will soon be fixed.) | >
> | [Summarize the factors that led to the Great Migration a la Transformation of Southern Agriculture - Southern workers were laid off at massive rates. The Tenant-Farming system essentially died because it became obsolete.]
Notes
:
| | | | |
>
> | | | |
|
|