# Evolution of American Agriculture/Chapter IX

​ CHAPTER IX Influence of machinery on agricultural production and rural population.
THE INTRODUCTION of machinery into agriculture furnishes the severest test of the intelligence of both the farmer and the farm laborer, and the extent to which it may be introduced depends upon a number of factors which vary considerably in the different regions of the Earth. However, in the United States the conditions were favorable to the change, except in the South, which was cursed with slavery, and a consequent lack of intelligence on the part of the major portion of the population.
In the North there was a population eager to advance, and as fast as the machines could be demonstrated they were adopted. It was so rapidly developing a region that but few rural traditions had taken root; there were no deep-seated prejudices that needed to be overcome. Most of the farmers were land-owners, the proportion of tenants was small, and the number of wage-earning farm hands very limited, so there were practically none to oppose the change because they felt their mode of living threatened.
The early machines were fairly simple in construction and required but little imagination to be able to grasp their general principles. Hence, the ​new farming came into use without the friction that developed in Europe where the lands were long settled and where there were well defined classes of landlords, tenants and laborers with strongly developed class psychologies and ancient prejudices.
We have already discussed the history of agriculture in this country and have fairly well traced the advance of the machines in the transformation of the art, but it is now necessary to invade the realm of dry figures and show the concrete result of machine farming in the direction of increased production which, of course, is the true test of utility and beneficence.
The Federal census of 1840 was the first to take any account of agricultural production and, as the machine age was in its infancy at that time (none of the machines having been adopted to the extent that they materially affected the total of production), we may very justly use the figures of that census as the basis of our comparisons.
The following tables have been made as brief as clearness will allow and will repay a careful study. Round numbers and percentages are given rather than burden the reader with the niceties of the statisticians. The ten year periods are used as being ample for comparison. The 1919 figures are approximations, and all figures refer to the United States proper.
See Page 62 (Table A).
Table A comprises the working farm population with the total population by ten year periods from 1840 to 1919. During these 79 years the working farmers decreased from 20 per cent to 13 per cent of the total population, a relative decrease of 35 per ​cent. While the total population had increased practically six and one-third times, and the export of foodstuffs to foreign lands had also vastly increased, relatively speaking, less than two-thirds the number of farmers was necessary to supply the demand in 1919, as compared with 1840. Without doubt, this is due to the introduction of machinery on the farms.
It increased the capital necessary to enter into the new competitive farming and compelled vast numbers to seek employment in the developing industries who would otherwise have sought a living on the soil. This fact is amply illustrated by a glance at Table B, which shows the relative increase of the industrial population as compared with the total population for the same period.
See Page 63 (Table B).
The industrial population increased from 13 1-3 per cent in 1840 to 31.1 per cent of the total population in 1919, a relative increase of more than 2 1-3 times in 79 years, but also an actual increase of 14.8 times as compared with an actual increase of 4 1-9 times on the part of the working farmers (see Table D). The machine method of wealth production limited the opportunity of the ordinary man to compete on account of his lack of capital and he sought his outlet in the shops where, as a man without capital, he was at least able to earn a living.
See Page 64 (Table C).
TABLE A.
Showing Relative DECREASE of Working Farm Population as Compared With Total Population
| Census Year | Total Population | Working Population on Farms | Percentage of Working Farmers to Population | Relative decrease of Working Farmers in Ten Year Period |
| 1840 | 17,069,000 Increase, 35.9% | 3,413,800 Increase, 19.56% | 20% | 12% |
| 1850 | 23,192,000 Increase, 35.6% | 4,081,800 Increase, 24% | 17.6% | 85% |
| 1860 | 31,443,000 Increase, 22.6% | 5,062,300 Increase, 17.5% | 16.1% | 4.35% |
| 1870 | 38,558,000 Increase, 30% | 5,948,000 Increase, 29.7% | 15.4% | None |
| 1880 | 50,156,000 Increase, 24.8% | 7,714,000 Increase, 10.9% | 15.4% | 11.4% |
| 1890 | 62,622,000 Increase, 20.7% | 8,556,000 Increase, 21.3% | 13.7% | None |
| 1900 | 75,568,000 Increase, 21.7% | 10,382,000 Increase, 18.3% | 13.7% | 22% |
| 1910 | 91,972,000 Increase, 17.5% | 12,285,000 Increase, 14.36% | 13.4% | 3% |
| 1919 | 108,067,000 | 14,049,000 | 13% | |
TABLE B.
Showing Relative INCREASE of Industrial Population as Compared With Total Population
| Census Year | Total Population | Working Population in the Other Industries | Percentage of Workers in Other Industries | Relative Increase of Industrial Workers in Ten Year Period |
| 1840 | 17,069,000 Increase, 35.9% | 2,275,900 Increase, 60% | 13 1-3% | 17.7% |
| 1850 | 23,192,000 Increase, 35.6% | 3,641,100 Increase, 48.8% | 15.7% | 9.5% |
| 1860 | 31,443,000 Increase, 22.6% | 5,418,700 Increase, 20.9% | 17.2% | Sl't dec. |
| 1870 | 38,558,000 Increase, 30% | 6,552,000 Increase, 48% | 17% | 13.7% |
| 1880 | 50,156,000 Increase, 24.8% | 9,699,000 Increase, 45.9% | 19 1-3% | 17% |
| 1890 | 62,622,000 Increase, 20.7% | 14,155,000 Increase, 32.1% | 22.6% | 9.3% |
| 1900 | 75,568,000 Increase, 21.7% | 18,699,000 Increase, 38% | 24.7% | 13.75% |
| 1910 | 91,972,000 Increase, 17.5% | 25,883,000 Increase, 30% | 28.1% | 10.67% |
| 1919 | 108,067,000 | 33,648,000 | 31.1% |
TABLE C.
Showing Relative Increase of Productive Capacity for Working Farmer by Ten Year Periods
| Census Year | Working Population on the Farms | Total Cereal Production in Bushels of Corn, Oats, Rye, Wheat, Rice, Barley, Buckwheat and Kaffir Corn | Bushels of Cereal Production Per Working Farmer | Relative Increase of Productive Capacity per Working Farmer for Ten Year Period |
| 1840 | 3,413,800 Increase, 19.56% | 617,300,000 Increase, 41.4% | 188 | 13.51% |
| 1850 | 4,081,800 Increase, 24% | 871,000,000 Increase, 54.1% | 213.4 | 15% |
| 1860 | 5,062,300 Increase, 17.5% | 1,242,100,000 Increase, 22.34% | 245.4 | 04.11% |
| 1870 | 5,948,000 Increase, 29.7% | 1,519,600,000 Increase, 77.64% | 255.5 | 36.98% |
| 1880 | 7,714,000 Increase, 10.9% | 2,699,400,000 Increase, 30.43% | 350 | 17.54% |
| 1890 | 8,556,000 Increase, 21.3% | 3,520,900,000 Increase, 25.95% | 411.5 | 03.77% |
| 1900 | 10,382,000 Increase, 18.3% | 4,434,700,000 Increase, 18.95% | 427 | 00.56% |
| 1910 | 12,285,000 Increase, 14.36% | 5,275,400,000 Increase, 15% | 429.4 | 00.605% |
| 1919 | 14,049,000 | 6,066,700,000 | 432 |
TABLE D.
Table of Comparison With Population and Production of 1840 by Ten Year Periods
| | Total Population Compared to 1840. See Table A. | Total Working Farmers Compared to 1840. See Table A. | Total Industrial Workers Compared to 1840. See Table B. | Total Cereal Production to 1840. See Table C. | Rates of Increase of Cereal Production Compared to Increase of Farming Population. | Bushels of Grain Produced per Capita of Population. |
| 1840 | 1. | 1. | 1. | 1. | ........ | 36. |
| 1850 | 1.36 | 1.195 | 1.6 | 1.411 | 118% | 37.5 |
| 1860 | 1.842 | 1.483 | 2.38 | 2.012 | 135.7% | 39.4 |
| 1870 | 2.259 | 1.742 | 2.90 | 2.462 | 141.3% | 39.4 |
| 1880 | 2.938 | 2.26 | 4.26 | 4.373 | 193.5% | 54. |
| 1890 | 3.669 | 2.506 | 6.22 | 5.704 | 227.6% | 56.2 |
| 1900 | 4.427 | 3.042 | 8.216 | 7.184 | 236.1% | 58.7 |
| 1910 | 5.388 | 3.60 | 11.37 | 8.546 | 237.4% | 57.3 |
| 1919 | 6.331 | 4.115 | 14.80 | 9.828 | 238.8% | 56. |
See Page 65 (Table D).
It is interesting to observe that while our population has increased 6 1-3 times, and the industrial population has increased 14.8 times, the working farmers have increased but 4 1-9 times. While the farmers have increased 4 1-9 times, their cereal production has increased 9.8 times and the grain production per capita of total population increased from 36 bushels in 1840 to 56 bushels in 1919.
For years we have had dinned in our ears the cry of "Back to the land! Back to the land!" The impression sought to be conveyed being that our countryside was becoming depopulated. But the fact of the matter is that there has been no movement away from the land. The agricultural population has steadily increased, as Table A amply shows. But it has not increased at anything like the rate of the industrial population. The decrease of the number ​of working farmers is relative, not real. The number of land owners, however, shows a decided tendency to actually decrease, and this will be discussed in the next chapter.
Even in Great Britain, Prof. Marshall of the University of Dublin estimates that, with a proper store of fertilizers, the British people would be able to withstand an indefinite blockade, machinery and science having settled the problem of food supply.