# Our Common Country/Chapter 4

I address you not as farmers but as patriotic citizens of the United States. Every word that I say to you is addressed not to your welfare alone, but to the welfare of every man, woman and child, and to the welfare of the future citizens of our country.
I deplore the use in political campaigns or in public administration of special appeals and of special interests. I deplore any foreign policy which tends to group together those of foreign blood according to their nativity. I deplore undue meddling in the affairs of other nations, which may, some day in a future ​election, result in a hyphenated vote controlling the balance of power which may be delivered to that candidate who is most supine in the face of un-American pressure. I deplore class appeals at home. I deplore the soviet idea, and the compromises and encouragements which we have seen extended to it.
When the responsibility for leadership in putting America back on to the main road, was placed upon me, I said to myself that we must all unite under the slogan "America First." When I say America First I mean not only that America maintain her own independence and be first in fulfilling her obligations to the world, by deeds rather than words, and by example rather than preaching, but I mean that at home any special interest, any class, any group of our citizenship that has arrayed itself against the interests of all, must learn that at home, as well as abroad, ​America First has a meaning, profound, and, with God's aid, everlasting.
It is true that you, the farmers of this country, and I are charged with an obligation of program and definite action that fosters the welfare of all America, the welfare of the man who lives in the house with the red barn and the productive fields behind it, and also the welfare of the man who in a crowded industrial city, comes home at nightfall to climb the stairs to his fourth-floor home, behind the fire escapes, with hunger in the body.
I desire with all my heart to speak for the consumer when I speak of American agriculture. I desire to put aside platitudes, all the poetic tradition about the worth and merits of the honest farmer. Honesty is not peculiar to any occupation. I desire to awake the country to the menaces to its future unless American agriculture is preserved, and above nonsense and false promises and prodigal waste ​and dictatorial powers, all of which have smothered the farmer, as they have smothered us all, and overworked executive powers. I desire, in this great agricultural problem as in all our national problems, to go back to the functions of our Republic and of our representative system. I want to restore the will of the people. And under the restoration, I desire to deal with all our great problems, not in the twilight of generalities, but in the full sunlight of definition and forward marching.
With the agriculture of the United States—the basic industry—I am deeply concerned. If history does not deceive us by changing repetitions of her precepts, a nation lives no longer than her agricultural health abides. It is the soil that is our mother, and the mother of nations; it is land hunger that founds revolutions, anarchy and decay. We must look our land problems and farming situation ​squarely in the face and act bravely and wisely and promptly. In doing so, you and I must turn to the consumers of the United States and say, "This is your problem and your posterity's problem as well as ours."
The day of land hunger has come. The day when we see before us the spectacle of the land-owing farmer being displaced by capitalistic speculation in land and the soil-exhausting and landlord-exploited tenant farmer has come. The day when the share of the American farmer in whatever is left of prosperity has been overtopped by the share taken by our industrial production, has come. The day when industry outbids agriculture for labor has come. The day when the profit of the farmer has been cut down and the price to the consumer has been lifted up, has come. The day when bad and wasteful distribution between producer and consumer, and the day of too much ​unrighteous profiteering, by too many unnecessary middlemen, has come. The day when production of our soil must be protected against the soil products of countries of low standards of living, has come.
These conditions call for wise action on the part of government. They call for good counsel. They call for the presence of the American farmer in our government offices, administrative and representative. They call for extension of the farm loan principle, not only in the case of the man who already owns a farm, but to worthy Americans who want to acquire farms. In other words, they call for capital available to the farmers of America as a bulwark against the exploits of capital available to the land speculator.
Furthermore, these conditions call for a willingness of all Americans to act together in restoring to American agriculture a prosperity that will keep the ​land owner and land worker upon our soil. We must obliterate the picture of the year 1920, when we have allowed the labor of the farm-wife and young girls and old women to be the substitute for normal farm labor. The women have helped to guarantee to consumers of the United States and dependent nations their full food supply, and though it is a monument to them we must find ways to restore a more normal and a more American labor supply to our farms.
I believe that the American people, through their government and otherwise, not only in behalf of the farmer but in behalf of their own welfare, and the pocketbooks of the consumers of America, will encourage, make lawful, and stimulate cooperative buying, cooperative distribution, and cooperative selling of farm products.
Industry has been organized; labor has been organized; cooperation within in​dustry and within labor, and indeed, cooperation between the two, is far advanced. I do not contemplate the organization of the farmers and consumers of this country as a step toward organization of special interests to obtain special favors. If I did, I would oppose it. But I know full well that we must, all of us consumers—the laborers, the business men, the teachers, the children, the rich and the poor, the young and the old, the men and the women—act together to find our way closer and easier and cheaper to the sources of our food supply. And I know full well that the farmers must work together to find their way, by better transportation, better marketing and organized cooperative effort, closer to the consumers of America.
If these two—producers and consumers of food—are not brought closer together by organization, by better railroad service, by the auxiliary of motor-truck facili​ties, by better roads, by the removal of legal obstructions to organized effort, I know that organized profiteering will squeeze in somewhere between the producer and the consumer.
I do not speak in a sentimental generality when I say this. I hope I am saying something which will not only point the way to a fair and just prosperity for American agriculture and tend to stop land speculation and the increase of the tenant farmer, but which will be one big, practical step taken against the high cost of living. It will be taken in the name of no class, but in the name of the people of America.
Years ago a Chinese philosopher uttered a profound truth when he said: "The well-being of a people is like a tree; agriculture is its root, manufacture and commerce are its branches and its life; if the root is injured the leaves fall, the branches break and the tree dies."
​It may seem strange to many good people that at this particular time any one should quote this saying of a wise old Chinese. Never in all our history have prices of farm products ruled so high, measured in dollars, as during the past four years. Farm land in the great surplus-producing states has advanced to unheard-of prices, with every indication that, but for the tight money conditions, it would go still higher. Apparently the farmers of the land are enjoying unprecedented prosperity. Why then, even by implication, suggest that something may be wrong with our agriculture, and that the trouble may be communicated to our manufacturers and commerce? People in the cities are disposed to think that if there is anything wrong it is in the cities where food is selling at such high prices, and not in the country where the food is produced. But both farm and city students of national problems see in the present ​agricultural situation certain conditions which give cause for real concern to every lover of his country.
An intelligent discussion of our agriculture at the present time must take note of what has happened since the middle of the last century. At that time a fine rural civilization had been built up east of the Mississippi River, with Ohio in the heart of the corn belt and standing in about the same relation to agriculture as Iowa stands to-day. The agricultural frontier had been pushed beyond the Mississippi, and abundant food was being raised to support the growing industrial life of the East.
Then came the civil war, and following it the great western migration into the fertile, open plains of what is now the Central West. Through the homestead law the government gave a farm of the richest land in the world to every man who wanted one. Railroads were built, ​the prairies were plowed up, and almost over night the agricultural production of the United States increased by fifty per cent. Grains were produced and sold at the bare cost of utilizing the soil, and the farmers of the older states to the east were smothered by this flood of cheap grain. The only thing that could be done with this super-abundance of food was to build cities out of it. And great cities we did build, not only in the United States, but across the seas. The world has never seen, and probably may never again see, such a terrific impulse toward city-building on a vast scale as that which was given by the over-production of farm products during the latter part of the nineteenth century and the first few years of the twentieth.
What are ordinarily dull statistics will strikingly illumine the situation which I have been trying to convey. In the decade from 1900 to 1910 the city population of ​the United States increased thirty-five per cent., while the rural population increased only eleven per cent. The number of farm utilities probably increased less, but we do know officially that the city population increased more than three times as rapidly as the rural population. The figures are not yet complete for the decade ending with 1920, but sufficient reports have been published to give us a very dependable estimate. The indications are that no increase will be shown in the number of farms and no increase in strictly farm population. In all probability, dating from 1920, we shall estimate our farm population as thirty per cent. of the whole while the urban population will make up the other seventy per cent.
Another interesting fact to reveal the danger in changing conditions: Only a few decades ago, indeed from the very beginning, the exports of the United States were soil-grown or farm-produced ​materials. On the other hand, most of our imports were manufactured articles. In the last half century, year after year the exports of farm-grown products have decreased—except during the World War—and exports of manufactured products have increased until again we are rapidly reaching the zero mark from the standpoint of agricultural supplies to the world. Each year our imports show larger and larger quantities of farm-grown products and the time is almost with us when the imports of farm-grown products will exceed the exports, in short, when our farm population will not be supplying the products necessary for our own people.
The farmer suffered during this changing period. Over-production means low prices, and he over-produced with a vengeance, though it was an inevitable part of the scheme of American development. He was obliged to practise grinding eco​nomy, and to live as far as possible from the produce of his own acres. He did live essentially within his own productivity, and the farm was the factory for the agricultural home. "Land poor" was a common expression in the farming country. Many, and especially the ambitious boys, abandoned the farms and added themselves to the growing population of the cities, driven by the hardships of the farm and attracted by the greater rewards offered by the cities.
By 1905, it was becoming apparent that the consuming power of the cities and industrial centers would soon be large enough to equalize the producing power of the farms. Prices of farm products began to advance, and with this advance an increase in the price of farm land. Improved machinery increased the number of acres one man could farm, thereby decreasing his cost of production. The expression "farm poor" was no longer ​heard. Men who had not secured farms of their own began to seek them, and the march to the West and Northwest was resumed. Irrigation projects were started and the homestead law made more liberal in order to make the settlement of the semi-arid country more attractive. New areas of government land were opened for entry.
In the meantime, the consuming public had become concerned over the prospect of paying higher prices for foodstuffs. Cities and industrial centers had been built up on ridiculously cheap food; indeed, their building was the first essential in developing farm values. Then the increase in price called for readjustment and required wage advances. Organizations of city business men began to take an interest in farm affairs and preach the duty of increased production. The "Back to the Land" cry began to be heard. Increased appropriations by Con​gress and by the state legislatures were made to stimulate better methods of farming and thus increase production in hope of keeping down food prices. The rural uplift movement was started with the thought that, by making conditions on the farm more attractive, the drift from the farm to the city might be checked. The work of agricultural colleges was strengthened by the addition of extension departments, the function of which is to take the teaching of better methods of farming and stock-growing into the counties and smaller communities, and especially to stimulate an interest in farming among the boys and girls. All sorts of efforts were made to check the drift from the farm to the city, and to maintain farm production.
In truth, here in America, farming came to that stage where it ceased to be a mere struggle for sustenance, and it found its place amid the competition for ​achievement. It was no longer the inheritly directed operation, with the soil for restricted living, but became a commercial, scientific operation with Mother Nature, to share in the accomplishments of a modern life, and know a participation in modern rewards.
Then came the World War which accelerated the movement which was already under full headway. The cry for food which came from the nations across the sea caused further advances in prices of farm products, as well as in prices of farm land, and both profits and patriotism stimulated production. But with this increased demand for the products of the farm came also an increased demand for the products of our factories and other industrial enterprises, resulting in higher wages, and the city continued to pull from the farm large numbers of young men who did not have farms of their own and could see no prospect of getting them, and ​who thought they could see in the city better wages and greater opportunities for advancement, as well as more attractive living conditions. If the facts were available it would be found, probably during the period from 1905 to 1917, the time of our entrance into the war, the drift from the farm to the city continued with little abatement notwithstanding the more hopeful conditions on the farm.
The splendid part played by the farmers of the nation during the war probably never will be understood or fully appreciated by our people. More than twenty-five per cent. of all our fighting men came from the farms, and after sending their sons to the camps, the fathers and mothers, with the help of the younger children, turned to and produced more food than was ever before produced in the history of the world in the same time and from the same area of land. Their working days were measured not by the clock, but by the ​number of daylight hours. They took to themselves the responsibility of feeding not only our own people, but also our allies across the sea. In more ways than one, our farmers made the war their war, and counted no sacrifice too great to help fight it through to a successful finish. The story of what they did, written by some one who understands it, will furnish one of the most glorious chapters in American history. One thing I may say—in every American conflict, from the Revolution for independence to the World War for maintained rights, the farmer has been one hundred per cent. American and ready for every sacrifice.
Without speaking at length of farm production and prices during the war, it is necessary to note certain results, if we are to deal understandingly with the agricultural situation at the present time, and speak intelligently of a future policy. War conditions put a premium on grain ​growing at the expense of live stock production. As a consequence, many stock producers and feeders have suffered heavy and, in some cases, ruinous losses. If this condition should continue, we are in danger, in the near future, of having to pay very high prices for our meats.
For two outstanding reasons the maintenance of a normal balance between live stock and grain production is a matter of national concern. One is that we are a meat-eating people, and should have a fairly uniform supply at a reasonable price. Conditions which either greatly stimulate or greatly discourage live stock production result in prices altogether too high for the average consuming public or altogether too low for the producer. The other is that the over-stimulation of grain production depletes the fertility of our land, which is our greatest national asset, and results in a greater supply than can be consumed at a price profitable to the ​producer, and finally to wide-spread agricultural distress from which all of our people suffer. As a reconstruction measure, therefore, our government should do everything in its power to restore the normal balance between live stock and grain production, and thus encourage the prompt return to that system of diversified farming by which alone we can maintain our soil fertility. This is a matter of immediate importance to all of our people.
No one can forecast with certainty the trend of prices of farm products during the next two or three years. Recovery from a world crisis such as we have experienced is slow, inevitably. It is like the human convalescence from a long and dangerous illness. Our relations with the world-at-large are such that important happenings in other lands have a marked effect upon conditions here at home. Order must be restored, industries ​rebuilt, devastated lands reclaimed, transportation re-established, the vast armies re-absorbed in the occupations of normal life. The near future promises to be a period of uncertainty for the farmer as well as for the men engaged in industrial enterprises. America has no greater problem than returning securely to the normal, onward road again. This isn't looking backward—it is a forward look to stability and security.
It must be evident, however, to any one who has given the matter even superficial consideration, that we have now come to the end of the long period of agricultural exploitation in the United States. No longer are there great and easy and awaiting areas of fertile land for the land hungry. We have now under the plow practically all of our easily-tillable land, though idle areas await reclamation and development by that genius and determination which ever have made nature re​spond to human needs. Additions of consequence, which we may make to our farming area from this time on, must come by putting water on the dry lands of the arid and semi-arid country, or by taking water off of the swamp lands, of which we have large areas in some sections, or by digging the stumps out of the cut-over timber lands of the North and South. There are, of course, large possibilities in intensive farming, in that land thrift which admits of neither waste nor neglect, and in ever-improving methods which must be as inspiring to agricultural life as to the professions or to commercial leadership. I want a soul in farming, to set aglow the most independent and self-respecting activity in all the world.
The time has come when, as a nation, we must determine upon a definite agricultural policy. We must decide whether we shall undertake to make of the United States a self-sustaining nation—which ​means that we shall grow within our own boundaries all of the staple food products needed to maintain the highest type of civilization—or whether we shall continue to exploit our agricultural resources for the benefit of our industrial and commercial life, and leave to posterity the task of finding food enough, by strong-arm methods, if necessary, to support the coming hundreds of millions. I believe in the self-sustaining, independent, self-reliant nation, agriculturally, industrially and politically. We are then the guarantors of our own security and are equal to the task.
If we should unhappily choose the course of industrial and commercial promotion at the expense of agriculture, cities will continue to grow at the expense of the rural community, agriculture will inevitably break down and finally destroy the finest rural civilization with the greatest possibilities the world has ever ​seen. Decreased farm production will make dear food and we shall be obliged to send our ships to far-away nations in search of cheap foodstuffs the importation of which is sure to intensify agricultural discouragement and distress at home. Ultimately there will come the same fatal break-down and from the same causes, that has destroyed the great civilizations of centuries past.
If, on the other hand, we shall determine to build up here a self-sustaining nation—and what lover of his country can make a different choice?—then we must at once set about the development of a system of agriculture which will enable us to feed our people abundantly, with something to spare for export in years of plenty, and at prices which will insure to the farmer and his family both financial rewards and educational, social and religious living conditions fairly comparable to those offered by the cities. A sound ​system of agriculture can not be maintained on any other basis. Anything short of a fair return upon invested capital and a fair wage for the labor which goes into the crops, and enough in addition to enable the farmer to maintain the fertility of his soil and insure against natural hazards, will drive large numbers of farmers to the cities.
A frank recognition by all of our people of this fundamental truth is necessary, if we are successfully to work out this great national problem. It is a matter of even greater concern to the people of the cities than to the farmer and the farm community. If we can not by painstaking study and wise statesmanship arrive at such understanding and application of economic laws as will enable us to bring about a fair balance between our urban and rural industries, bringing prosperity to both and permitting neither to fatten at the expense of the other, we can not ​hope for concord, and without concord there is no assurance for the future.
Heretofore the farmer has been an individualist. Living a somewhat isolated life and being compelled to work long hours, it has not been easy for him to gather with his fellows. He. has not had a ready means of defense against the strong organizations of both capital and labor, which in their own interest have at times imposed unfair conditions upon him. It is true that at times, during the past fifty years, there have been temporary farmer organizations brought together to combat some unusually burdensome conditions but usually breaking down when the emergency has passed.
But of late years there have sprung up farmer organizations of a quite different sort—organizations with a very large membership, with an aggressive and intelligent leadership, and with a way of raising whatever funds they may find ​necessary to promote the interest of their members. The leaders of these organizations are learning rapidly how to adapt to their work the methods which business men and working men have found successful in furthering their own interests. The fruit-growers of the western coast have become so strong that they are now able not only to do away with many of the expenses heretofore paid to others, but also to influence the price of their products. The grain-growers of the West and Northwest have become strong enough to bring about many changes they desired in the marketing of their crops. The farmers of the corn belt states are rapidly perfecting the most powerful organization of farmers ever known in this country. All of these are natural developments in the evolving change of relationship and the modern complexities of productivity and exchange.
It is more than conceivable, it is appar​ent, that we are able to deal more wisely and more justly with our agriculture than we have in the past. Unless we do deal more fairly there may come a conflict between the organized farmers in the surplus-producing states and those who insist on buying their crops below production costs. We have witnessed the restricted production of manufactures and of labor, but we have not yet experienced the intentionally restricted production of foodstuffs. Let us hope we never may. It is our business to produce and conserve, not to deny, deprive or destroy.
I have no thought of suggesting that the government should work out an elaborate system of agriculture and then try to impose it on the farmers of the country. That would be utterly repugnant to American ideals. Government paternalism, whether applied to agriculture or to any other of our great national industries, would stifle ambition, impair efficiency, ​lessen production and make us a nation of dependent incompetents. The farmer requires no special favors at the hands of the government. All he needs is a fair chance and just such consideration for agriculture as we ought to give to a basic industry, and ever seek to promote for our common good.
The need of farm representation in larger governmental affairs is recognized. During the past seven years the right of agriculture to a voice in government administration has been practically ignored, and at times the farmer has suffered grievously as a result. The farmer has a vital interest in our trade relations with other countries, in the administration of our financial policies, and in many of the larger activities of the government. His interests must be safeguarded by men who understand his needs, he must be actually and practically represented.
The right of farmers to form coopera​tive associations for the marketing of their products must be granted. The concert of agriculture is as essential to farms as a similar concert of action is to factories. A prosperous agriculture demands not only efficiency in production, but efficiency in marketing. Through cooperative associations the route between the producer and the consumer can and must be shortened. Wasteful effort can and must be avoided. Unnecessary expense can and must be eliminated. It is to the advantage of all of our people that every possible improvement be made in our methods of getting the products of our farms into the hands of the people who consume them. The legitimate functions of the middleman may continue to be performed, by private enterprise, under conditions where the middleman is necessary and gives his skill to our joint welfare. The parasite in distribution who preys on both producer and consumer must no ​longer sap the vitality of this fundamental life.
We should have a scientific study of agricultural prices and farm production costs, both at home and abroad, with a view to reducing the frequency of abnormal fluctuations here. Stabilization will contribute to everybody's confidence. Farmers have complained bitterly of the frequent and violent fluctuations in prices of farm products, and especially in prices of live stock. They do not find fluctuations—such fluctuations—in the products of other industries. In a general way prices of farm products must go up or down according to whether there is a plentiful crop or a short one. The farmer's raw materials are the fertility of the soil, the sunshine and the rain; and the size of his crops is measured by the supply of these raw materials and the skill with which he makes use of them. He can not control his production and ​adjust it to the demand as can the manufacturer. But he can see no good reason why the prices of his products should fluctuate so violently from week to week, and sometimes from day to day. We must get a better understanding of the factors which influence agricultural prices; with a view to avoiding these violent fluctuations and bringing about average prices, which shall bear a reasonable relation to the cost of production. We do not offer any quack remedies in this matter, but we do pledge ourselves to make a thorough study of the disease, find out what causes it, and then apply the remedy which promises a cure.
We promise to put an end to unnecessary price-fixing of farm products and to ill-considered efforts arbitrarily to reduce farm product prices. In times of national crisis, when there is a known scarcity of any necessary product, price control for the purpose of making a fair ​distribution of the stores on hand may be both necessary and wise. But we know that there can be no repeal of natural laws—the eternal fundamentals. The history of the last three thousand years records the folly of such efforts. If the price of any farm product, for example, is arbitrarily fixed at a point which does not cover the cost of production, the farmer is compelled to reduce the production of that particular crop. This results in a shortage which in turn brings about higher prices than before, and thus intensifies the danger from which it was sought to escape. In times past, many nations have tried to hold down living costs by arbitrarily fixing prices of farm products. All such efforts have failed, and have usually brought national disaster.
Government drives against food prices such as we have experienced during the past two years are equally vain and useless. The ostensible purpose of such ​drives is to reduce the price the consumer pays for food. The actual result is unjustly to depress for a time the prices the farmer receives for his grains and live stock, but with no appreciable reduction in the price the consumer pays. Such drives simply give the speculator and the profiteer additional opportunities to add to their exactions, while they add to the uncertainty and discouragement under which the farmer is laboring during this period of readjustment.
We favor the administration of the farm loan act, so as to help men who farm to secure farms of their own, and to give to them long-time credits needed to practise the best methods of diversified farming.
We also favor the authorization of associations to provide the necessary machinery to furnish personal credit to the man, whether land owner or tenant, who is hampered for lack of working cap​ital. The highest type of rural civiliza tion is that in which the land is farmed by the men who own it. Unfortunately, as land increases in value, tenancy also increases.
This has been true throughout history. At the present time probably one-half of the high priced land in the corn belt states is farmed by men, who, because of lack of capital, find it necessary to rent. This increase in tenancy brings with it evils which are a real menace to national welfare. The land owner, especially if he be a speculator who is holding for a profit through an advance in value, is concerned chiefly in securing the highest possible rent. The tenant who lacks sufficient working capital, and who too often is working under a short time lease, is forced to farm the land to the limit and rob it of its fertility in order to pay the rent. Thus we have a sort of conspiracy between landlord and tenant to rob the ​soil upon which our national well-being and indeed our very existence depend. Amid such conditions, we have inefficient schools, broken-down churches, and a sadly-limited social life. We should, therefore, concern ourselves not only in helping men to secure farms of their own, and in helping the tenant secure the working capital he needs to carry on the best methods of diversified farming, but we should work out a system of land-leasing which, while doing full justice to both landlord and tenant, will at the same time conserve the fertility of the soil.
We do not longer recognize the right to speculative profit in the operation of our transporation systems, but we are pledged to restore them to the highest state of efficiency as quickly as possible. Agriculture has suffered more severely than any other industry through the inefficient railroad service of the last two years. Many farmers have incurred disastrous ​losses through inability to market their grain and live stock. Such a condition must not be permitted to continue. We must bring about conditions which will give us prompt service at the lowest possible rates.
We need a revision of the tariff as soon as conditions shall make it necessary for the preservation of the home market for American labor, American agriculture and American industry. For a permanent good fortune all must have a common interest. If we are to build up a self-sustaining agriculture here at home, the farmer must be protected from unfair competition from those countries where agriculture is still being exploited and where the standards of living on the farm are much lower than here. We have asked for higher American standards, let us maintain them.
The farmers of the corn belt, for example, are already threatened with unfair ​competition from the Argentine, whose rich soil is being exploited in heedless fashion and where the renters who farm it are living under conditions more miserable than the poorest tenants in the United States. In times past, duties on agricultural products were largely in the nature of paper tariffs, for we were a great surplus-producing nation. Now that consumption at home is so nearly reaching normal production, the American farmer has a right to insist that in our trade relations with other countries he shall have the same consideration that is accorded to other industries, and we mean to protect them all.
So long as America can produce the foods we need, I am in favor of buying from America first. It is this very preference which impels development and improvement. Whenever America can manufacture to meet American needs—and there is almost no limit to our genius ​and resources—I favor producing in America first. I commend American preference for American productive activities, because material good fortune is essential to our higher attainment, and linked indissolubly are farm and factory in the economic fabric of American life.
Under a sound system of agriculture, fostered and safeguarded by wise and fair administration of state and federal government, the farmers of the United States can feed our people for many centuries—perhaps indefinitely. But we must understand conditions, and make a new appraisal of relationships, and square our actions to the great underlying foundation of all human endeavor. Farming is not an auxiliary, it is the main plant, and geared with it, inseparably, is every wheel of transportation and industry. America could not go on with a dissatisfied farming people, and no nation is secure where land-hunger ​abides. We need fewer land-hogs who menace our future, and more fat hogs for ham and bacon. We need less beguilement in cultivating a quadrennial crop of votes and more consideration for farming as our basic industry. We need less appeal to class consciousness, and more resolute intelligence in promptly solving our problems. We need rest and recuperation for a soil which has been worked out in agitation, and more and better harvests in the inviting fields of mutual understanding. We need less of grief about the ills which we may charge to the neglect of our own citizenship, and more confidence in just government, along with determination to make and hold it just.
We need to contemplate the miracle of America in that understanding which enables us to appreciate that which made us what we are, and then resolve to cling fast to all that is good and go confidently on to great things.
​We need to recall that America and its triumphs are not a gift to the world through a paralyzing internationality, but the glories of the Republic are the fruits of our nationality and its inspirations—of freedom, of opportunity, of equal rights under the Constitution, of Columbia offering the cup of American liberty to men thirsting to achieve and beckoning men to drink of the waters of our political life and be rewarded as they merit it. I think that the paths which brought us to the point where the world leadership might have been ours—as it might have been in 1919—in the first century and a third of national life, ought to be the way to the answered aspirations of this great Republic. I like to turn for reflection sometimes, because I get therein the needed assurance for the onward march of the morrow. To-day we have contemplated American farming in the broadest possible way, have been ​reminded where we have been remiss; to-morrow we want to greet farmers of America in the freedom and fulness of farming productivity, impelled by the assurance that they are to have their full part in the rewards of righteous American activity.