ÒThree Acres and a
Cow,Ó 1880s British Land Reform &1920s
Distributionism
ÒForty Acres and a
Mule,Ó Emancipation of Southern Slaves, US
Civil War
ÒOne Hundred Sixty
Acres and Independence,Ó American Homestead
Act 1862-1976
Human beings are a risk adverse bunch. In fact this seeking
of security is the real reason we seek to form bunches. Families,
neighborhoods, communities, towns, cities, states and nations, as well as
churches, synagogues, mosques, social clubs and lodges; the list is almost
endless.
The physical issues however, flows from the reality of
fallen man. We truly believe that there is safety in numbers, which is true to
a point, that point being when the dignity of the individual is replaced with
its loss. The more of that individual dignity we lose, the more we evolve into
the so-called lesser animals.
In western culture, to make these communities workable, we
first created a financial system called banking, in which we believed that a
preexisting commodity called money could be managed in such a way as to
increase security.
It took some enterprising Scots, enlightened by the
Protestant work ethic, to give us a positive model for creating that global
shining and secure city on a hill. That merger of banking and enterprise fueled
the creation of capitalism, in which risk is controlled through the application
of compound interest.
What happens however, if natural risk isnÕt covered by the
simple compound interest spread?
Simply put, human beings seek their security through other
means; most commonly land, as described at the introduction. Since during the
Age of Discovery and the open frontier all land was initially the property of
the state, and hence land grants of varying orders, became the mechanism for
development to take place, this is beyond the pale of capitalism and compound
interest.
In other words, free or very cheap land, and the resources
there of, and there on, became the mechanism that allowed risk and security to
maintain manageability within the capitalist system. The opening of the
American west was the means by which Òthose people,Ó outside the genre of
developing industrialization, could have a chance to achieve security through
self-sufficiency.
With the closing of the physical frontier, risk was
essentially shifted from land to enterprise, in the form of industrial securities,
or stock. However risks of infrastructure, too large or too risky to fit within
the confines of this creative innovation, were continually assumed by the
government and simply paid for by increasing taxes.
This system didnÕt work all that well, for it led to two
world wars, a great depression, other non-war wars, Korea and Vietnam, as well
as an increasing reliance on debt driven consumerism, stagflation and not so passive
forms of military and environmental imperialism.
For a generation or so, we have attempted to extrapolate
this decreasingly effective financial process by various booms and busts, in
which we were so enlightened we believed that this time is different and we
could achieve security without truly understanding the reality of the maturity
of the Industrial Age; and we have yet to create any mechanism to replace this
financial genius.
The quotations from the beginning of this article were
historical concepts of subsistence agriculture. There is a twentieth century
saying that goes something like: Those who think small subsistence farming
is a great way to live; havenÕt tried it.
In the twenty-first century we have fulfilled that universe in that: All
individual farming and ranching is subsistence.
Today it is probably correct to say, without U. S. government
farm subsidies we would have starved to death. It is also correct, because of U.
S. government agricultural subsidies we have created a precarious food system
directly linked to many of our health problems and is totally unsustainable in
a world of continually changing climate, escalating energy prices, and true
limitations on the availability of water.
Barack Obama doesnÕt understand or care about agriculture,
as long as he and Michelle can get an inexpensive burger and fries; life is
good. Mitt Romney, we have taken to task for lack of any thought of food or
agriculture in his almost 40,000 word Believe
in America treatise. Herman CainÕs brings us 9-9-9
where his claim to fame comes from the fast food industry, specifically Coke,
Burger King and Godfathers Pizza, the chief beneficiaries of our nationalized
agricultural system. This week Rick PerryÕs 20 percent flat tax, looks inferior
to our Grizzly
USA Plan, and like the president, he seems
more comfortable talking, other than in debates, or providing concrete
substance on anything.
Before we can look at the ÒThird Opening of the WestÓ we
must provide at least a historical context of the first two. For the basis of
the First Opening we will include the period from the arrival of first European
settlers and adventures, until essentially the American Civil War and the
passage of the Homestead Act in 1862.
For the Second Opening of the West we will incorporate those
114 years, which encompasses the closing of the physical frontier, about 1900,
and the New Deal farm policies that came out of the Great Depression and
beyond. We declare this end with the Òfence row to fence rowÓ farm policies of
Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz during the Nixon Administration for the nationalization
of Agriculture and the beginning of the Third Opening of the West. So far this third
crony boondoggle has led to the creation of the Great Fly Over, the God-awful
Drive Through, the Right and Left Coasts.
These massive agricultural subsidies provide grains to
agribusiness and food behemoths for much less than the true cost of production,
greatly distorting and simplifying our national and international food
supplies; making them very susceptible to natural and economic turmoil.
We have used the term the Second Opening of the West as
expressed in Wallace StegnerÕs book, Beyond
the Hundredth Meridian: John Wesley Powell and the Second Opening of the West.
For a more concise version of PowellÕs plan
for development we direct the reader to: Charles HutchinsonÕs web article John Wesley
Powell and the New West.
Putting it all into a context that is totally boring to
those from either the Right or Left coasts, as well as the universe of most
politicians, financial managers and economists; because we didnÕt listen to
Powell, the Second Opening required the New Deal band-aid, which ultimately put
American agriculture on life support. To keep the patient from dying, Secretary
Butz strategically changed the farm subsidy programs from government bandages
to government steroids.
It seems that governments, not only in the United States,
but also around the world, are incapable of doing anything positively
beneficial, which will lead us to a sustainable quantity —price sensitive
food structure.
The future the United States is going to rely on, for the
first time in our nationÕs history, and for that matter the future of the
world, developing a sustainable market driven, wealth producing, debt limited,
entrepreneur driven food, dare I say, human agricultural ecosystem, within a
world of limits of energy and most importantly water.
Let us begin with a description of the land, ÒBeyond the
Hundredth Meridian.Ó Beyond meaning to the west of the United StatesÕ east
coast centricity. The hundredth meridian in this discussion is roughly a line
of ecological change between the tall grass prairie and the short grass
prairie. These beyond areas, includes not only grasslands but also deserts, all
of which have annual precipitation of less than 20 inches (50 cm) per year.
Generally speaking the tall grass prairies, east of the
hundredth meridian, have annual precipitation between 20 inches and 40 inches
(100 cm). Forested lands normally have rainfall of over 40 inches and are
described as having poor glaciated, alluvial, soils that include mountainous
areas. To put the hundredth meridian on a map, why not look to Minot, North
Dakota, and use this as a north to south demarcation between the tall grass and
the short grass prairies. With a little digesting you now can understand the
great natural blessings of the ecology of the United States of America.
The Butz failure in Agriculture is flawed, as is the
previous Homestead — New Deal before it, because they all treat the
entirety of the United States as tall grass prairie, Iowa if you will.
Succinctly, you can grow just about any domestic crop in Iowa without the need
for supplemental irrigation.
The Homestead Act treated all of America as tall grass
prairie. During the homestead era on 160 acres, including the New Deal, you
could make a beyond subsistence living, on the tall grass prairie and related
lands that had access to irrigation water.
AmericaÕs Dust Bowl of the 1930s had treated short grass
prairie as long grass with disasterous results. Until such time as the Ogallala
High Plains Aquifer runs out of economically viable irrigation water, or shale
fracking fluid, we are treating this area as tall grass prairie. After the
water runs dry, it will return to short grass prairie or desert. No matter how
long it may last, the Ogallala Aquifer is one of our most valuable limited
natural resources.
Actually John Wesley Powell thought that you could make a
living on 40 acres with access to irrigation water, and even the civil warÕs
Òforty acres and a muleÓ also confirms that water access. The Òthree acres and a
cow,Ó borrowed from the English countryside, and abundant water, is assumed for
the primarily Roman Catholic concept of distributism.
I had not heard of distributism, before I began researching
this article. In fact it is not in either my Mac supplied dictionary or the
Microsoft Word dictionary. The interesting thing about distributism is it is
both anti socialist and anti capitalist in its worldview. It essentially
believes that people have the right, and function most productively when they
own physical property. The Biblical reference given to distributism is Psalm
37.
In many ways, it is quite similar, except in name, to
AmericaÕs secular micro-eco-farming movement. One, of countless examples, is
the ÒCenter of the Micro Eco-Farming
MovementÓ and since I used their much specific nomenclature, they deserve a
link.
There are a number of problems with distributism and eco-farming;
primarily it is pretty much designed for subsistence. Using the distributismÕs
cow, you need a market for your excess milk, a summer max precipitation of at
least a tall grass prairie, (short grass requires at least 10 acres for grazing
and access to external winter hay), a way to breed your cow, land to raise the
calf, and means to have milk to use and sell while between subsistence calving
periods.
PowellÕs homestead provisions took into account these
limitations. As is true today, west of the hundredth meridian with 40 acres and
abundant irrigation water, you can have an orchard, a vineyard and or a produce
truck farm. Adding a little agricultural crop and livestock diversity and you
might be able to create a sustainable, family enterprise. Add in a bit of
agritourism and direct marketing, and you could become a poster example for the
twenty-first century Individual Age.
However, out west, without irrigation water, with just 160
acres it is not enough land to do anything but starve to death. Without access
to outside capital resources, and only with a real job, you do not have time to
really do anything other than attempt to make enough money through agriculture
to pay the taxes on your vast landed gentry estate.
PowellÕs proposal for non-irrigated land was 2,560 acres for
homesteads that relied on grazing and dry land crops. That would have worked
during the Second Opening, New Deal era, but of course that was way too market
oriented for even nineteenth century government egalitarianism.
Three fourths of my ancestry are based on Washington
territory and state homesteading. On my motherÕs side of the family we base our
history in Washington from 1883 near Creston (about 60 miles west of Spokane)
and before the American Revolution in the Carolinas on her motherÕs side. Her
fatherÕs parents were immigrants from Denmark, arriving in Wilbur Washington
around the turn of the last century. Her grandfather was a carpenter.
On my dadÕs side of the family his motherÕs father homestead
is in the Waukon area about ten miles west of Spokane on the fertile fringes of
the Palouse short grass prairie in 1890. They were immigrants from Germany. My
Irish named ancestors were very successful in upstate New York before the Civil
War, probably coming to America, via Scotland, either because of the Irish
potato famine or other reasons. His grandfather and father created homesteads
in the Okanogan Highlands of north central Washington, when the north half of
the Colville Indian Reservation was opened to homesteading in 1900.
I bring this up, because my motherÕs grandfather on her
motherÕs side, homestead was a truck farm, orchard and vineyard on the shores
of the Columbia River before the building of Grand Coulee dam. He was
successful enough to buy other property and raise nine children.
On the short grass, good soil of the Palouse, my dadÕs
motherÕs family were successful enough to still have ancestors farming in the
area, and the tombstones in the Reardan cemetery are of such size to show they
were not subsistence farmers for very long.
My fatherÕs dad and grandfatherÕs homesteads in the Okanogan
Highlands however were a different story. Sometime around 1920, great grandpa
James Bannon had enough of trying to scratch out a living on 320 homestead
acres (two 160 acre parcels) and left everything, including his wife, and
headed for California, never to return. I joke he may have been the only sane
person on that side of the family.
The interesting thing, in context of this article, is that
if the Bannon homestead in the Okanogan Highland had been not 320 acres but
5120 acres, which would have by necessity included the bottom lands of the
small Bannon Creek drainage, then reserved as Indian allotment ground, they
could have made it as a cattle ranch, because it is within the size scope of
similar ranches in the area today.
To close this weekÕs segment, what this shows is that for a
century and a half, the American governmentÕs development of our national
lands, especially when we did not touch upon the land speculators responsible
for building our transcontinental railroads, we see agricultural policies, up
to the present time are dismal failures.
Things are going to have to change if we are going to
provide anything but nationalized subsidized food, totally dependent on cheap
fossil fuel energy, mining of water from ancient aquifers, and subsidized tall
grass prairie crops of corn and soybeans.
One of the popular quotations from distributism about the
failure of socialism seems to be appropriate: The Government forces you to put your eggs in one basket, and
then they decide to take away the basket.
©
2011: All rights reserved.
Access now the fresh insights of The Wonder Springs Chronicle - Front Page. Be sure to check out the grizzly times wisdom
and fresh insights of BruteÕ Griz every Friday. This column also now appears
each Wednesday on Deep Woods Moola
and The Creation Leadership Center.
To make a donation to the Wonder Springs community please
follow the donation links on the website or mail the funds to the address on
the headline.