The Ideal Nineteenth Century Farmer
In the nineteenth century, the act of owning land was a privileged position, and one that the everyday farmer boasted a strong sense of pride about. The September 1864 issue of The Genesee Farmer described its ideal: “We want our farmers to be working-men, not day-laborers…practical farmers, book-farmers and gentleman-farmers in one…. and should constitute by themselves an order of nobility—but eclectic, not hereditary” (“Glorying” 275). Farmers, then, should consider themselves as the backbone of a society, at least as much as any noble or government. This privilege, for an ideal farmer, would not concern hereditary ideals, but rather be a matter of hard work.
This rhetoric, however inspiring, was not in fact the case. As noted, generational wealth and hereditary ties were intrinsic to the practice of farming, especially in the 1800s. This created a tight knit community, one that was inherently biased towards outsiders, particularly day-laborers and migrant workers. Farm superintendents, for example, were cited in The Genesee Farmer as being particularly effective at managing Irish workers, a sentiment blatantly rooted in the anti-immigrant biases of the era that still extend today. It notes, “he could take a gang of hands, prepare one farm, and then go to another, only moving himself, as the work can be performed by the common Irish laborer, if it is properly laid out and superintended” (“Irrigation” 144).
In this way, it is clear that a farmer would view themself as a superior to the people they hired to work their land. Behind the rigorous planting ecosystem that runs a farm, beneath lies a stagnant social environment. If an ideal farmer’s place is to oversee the laborers, how do they feel satisfied with their own labor? Why farm at all? The answer, of course, is simple. Farming was something one had to do to survive, and without labor, the entire system would crumble under its own ambitions. A more generous interpretation may lie within the art of horticulture, which was heavily admired and influenced by the farms of the nineteenth century. One editorial introduction to the paper itself proudly proclaimed, “Agriculture and Horticulture are great and enduring interests; they are susceptible of large and indefinite improvement.” (“The Future” 329).
Therefore, an ideal farmer has left behind their antiquated view on the practice of agriculture, opting instead to stage it as a form of public benevolence rather than survival. This line of thinking contends, “we want our country’s soil to be intelligently and beneficially cultivated. We desire that it shall be rescued from ignorance and from quackery, and placed in the hands of active intellect and sound sense” (“Glorying” 275). A farmer then intrinsically must be better than both their predecessors and fellow countrymen, consistently striving to outdo one another. For the public good, farmers must serve as the backbone of the country, reflecting the new American values of education and virtuosity. The question then remains, how can one live up to this ideal?
Works Consulted
“Glorying in the Goad.” The Genesee Farmer 25.9 (Sept. 1864: 273-275). Courtesy of Internet Archive
“Irrigation.” The Genesee Farmer 15.5 (May 1854: 143-144). Courtesy of Internet Archive
“The Future of the Genesee Farmer.” The Genesee Farmer 13.11 (November 1852: 329-330). Courtesy of Internet Archive