In Essentials, Unity. Jenny Bourne
appearing on 26 April 1873 in the New York Pomeroy’s Democrat acknowledged that some worthy persons might not join the Grange because of the secrecy requirement, but “the end fully justifies the means. The evils and oppressions under which the farmers suffer are of such an infamous and grievous nature, that almost any means directed to relief would be justified.”
The Minnehaha Grange minutes are rife with references to degree work and ceremonial rites. Meetings that welcomed initiates would “lower to the first degree,” bring in the new members, then “raise to the second degree.” Members routinely referred to one another as “Brother” and “Sister,” and they (like other Grangers) referred to their leader as “Worthy Master.” Each year, the National Grange supplied a new password to State Granges via cipher if all dues were paid. In 1924, amusingly, the Minnesota State Grange could not obtain the password because of noncompliance, but the Minnehaha subordinate—which had its affairs in good order—simply wrote to the National Grange to get it. At times, the Minnehaha Grangers chided each other about respecting rituals, such as standing up when the Worthy Master entered the room and using appropriate methods of presenting and retiring the flag.29
Granger Concerns: Economic Status, Self-Improvement, Political Presence
After the explosive growth of the organization in the early 1870s, delegates to the annual meeting of the National Grange on 11 February 1874 decided they needed to draft a more formal mission statement. The result was the Declaration of Purposes, whose ringing words open each chapter of this book. The goals are noble; the suggested means of achieving them are vague.
Bettering farmers’ economic status held pride of place in the declaration. Grangers were exhorted to work together cooperatively, dispense with greedy middlemen, ensure cheap transportation, and break monopolistic practices. Oliver Kelley colorfully explained why economic concerns prevailed: “You must get into the farmers’ pockets to reach their hearts, and a lively palpitation there invigorates their minds.”30
The declaration emphasized more esoteric goals as well, including development of high moral standards and a devotion to continuing education (particularly agricultural education). It emphasized teamwork and fairness: “We appeal to all good citizens for their cordial cooperation to assist in our efforts toward reform, that we may eventually remove from our midst the last vestige of tyranny and corruption. We hail the general desire for fraternal harmony, equitable compromise, and earnest cooperation, as an omen of our future success.”
The identity of the Grange came out clearly in the declaration: it was to be an organization composed solely of farmers—although some admitted members had only a tangential relationship to agriculture. What is more, Granger meetings were to steer clear of politics and religion—although not all Grangers stayed aloof from political matters, and most Grangers were solidly middle-of-the-road Protestants. Grangers were encouraged as American citizens to “take a proper interest” in the nation’s politics and to have a duty to “put down bribery, corruption, and trickery,” but were never to engage in partisan activity.
Economic Status
Calculating farm profit seems straightforward: multiply price by quantity to find total revenue, then subtract out various production expenses. Some (albeit scanty) historical data exist on the prices of agricultural products, railroad rates, farm population, aggregate farm output, and the like, but determining what happened to individual farmers’ profits in the immediate postbellum period is no easy task. What matters to people, moreover, is not just net income but also the cost of consumption items, uncertainty about the future, ability to borrow in times of need, and perceptions of where they stand relative to others.
Several factors contributed to farmer dissatisfaction at the time of the initial enormous success of the Granger organization. These factors include farm prices falling faster than other prices, perceived exorbitant charges by middlemen and railroads, patent laws that seemed to favor the makers and sellers of farm equipment, heavy taxes on land, and regular upheavals in credit markets. At the annual gathering of the American Economic Association in 1893, Professor Edward Ross of Stanford put it like this: “A great cause of the farmers’ [sic] difficulty is that he is selling at competitive prices and buying a great many things, including transportation, at monopoly prices.” At the same convention, not-so-sympathetic Professor Franklin Giddings of Columbia thought the problem lay with the farmer himself, asking pointedly, “Why, throughout [the farmer’s] long years of his affliction, has he always come off worse in the contest? There must be something wrong in his own make-up. . . . He controls more votes than other men control. . . . The failing is in himself. If you want to reach the root of the farmers’ difficulties, you will have to begin with the farmers’ minds.”31
The latter view ignores something crucial, however: collective action is much easier to undertake when the number of interested parties is small. Transaction costs can impede the ability to speak with one voice, particularly when the parties are scattered and isolated from each other.32 This is precisely the problem the Grangers set out to solve. The following sections take a closer look at some of the farmers’ grievances that led them to find collaborative economic behavior attractive.
PRICES, REVENUE, AND THE PERCEIVED PROBLEM OF MIDDLEMEN
Farm prices did indeed fall in the first half of the 1870s, and initially they fell faster than other prices, as figure 1.11 shows. Perhaps surprisingly, farm prices actually started rising just about the time the Grange was enrolling members at a furious rate, whereas other prices continued falling. The relative volatility of agricultural prices was substantial, however, making planning difficult for farmers, especially because of the time lag between planting and harvesting.
Still, the total value of farm output rose throughout the nineteenth century, even adjusting for price changes over time. A measure that may shed more light on farmers’ position is the size of farm output relative to the size of total output in the economy. Because farm population declined over time as a proportion of total population, standardization is necessary to ascertain the relative position of farmers. Figure 1.12 shows this: one line indicates the real output per capita economy-wide, whereas the other shows the same figure just for farmers.
Figure 1.12 indicates that, during the nineteenth century, both farm and overall productivity grew, but the growth rate for farm productivity stalled after the Civil War. The loss of so many able-bodied men in the war was a contributing factor. In the South, the end of slavery was also an element. Although plantation agriculture continued, the disappearance of the master-slave relationship meant less coercive power over workers, which was a factor that affected agricultural productivity. Black men continued to work hard, certainly, but many black women and children withdrew from the labor force.33 The proportion of the population living on farms fell by 27 percent from 1860 to 1900, but the proportion of output attributable to farms dropped by 51 percent. These figures show that postbellum farmers were correct in thinking that as a whole they weren’t enjoying the fruits of economic growth as much as others.
Figure 1.11. Midwestern Farm Prices and Consumer Price Index, 1870–1900. Sources: Bowman and Keehn (1974); Carter et al. (2006, Series Cc2)
Figure 1.12. Farm and Economy-Wide Productivity, 1800–1900. Sources: Carter et al. (2006, Series Ba817, Ca11, Da28, Da1285)
What is more, many Grangers thought that farmers did not get their fair share of profit because middlemen seemed to skim so much off the top. As the Declaration of Purposes put it, “Their surplus and their exactions diminish our profits.” Brokers, warehousemen, grain elevator operators, and other sorts of businessmen who stood between the farmer and the ultimate consumer seemed