The Study Of The Western American Tenancy System Of The Late 19th Century

The agricultural tenancy system obtained a great development in the late 19th century in the western United States, especially during the economic crisis of the early 90s. When the crisis came to, many farmers whose land mortgaged out weren't able to repay their loans, so these mortgage system farms became bankrupt, and the ownership of the farms transferred, the farms became the tenancy system farm. At the same time, many large farms could also not operate due to the dissolution of the same cause, thus divided into a number of small farms, the farms of tenancy system. Therefore the ratio of land tenure greatly increased in the western United States. The mortgage system farms was controlled by the monopoly financial groups; and large farms were directly subordinate to the monopoly financial groups, so their dissolution were not the result of the financial group's bankruptcy, but a change of profitable ways in order to ensure the profits from the land because the financial groups could not operate in large farms. Therefore, the great development of the western tenancy system, was mainly the result of the monopoly financial groups'control. However, as a commodity economy, agriculture had to purchase and product sales through the market, thus farmers also had to accept the common exploitation of the railway, dead stock and other monopolies. These had all led to the difficulties and popularity of the tenancy system. Therefore, the tenancy system was based on large-scale development of financial-based results of the joint effect of monopoly power. Because of the tremendous contribution to the western agriculture and typical charecteristic of agricultural capitalism of tenancy system in western agriculture, the tenancy became the core of capitalism in agriculture "American-style road". Agriculture had contributed tremendous power for industrial development and the transition to the monopoly stage of capitalism, but the farmer groups had not been reciprocated, but sufferred from the exploitation of a variety of monopoly groups, and made enormous sacrifices. Therefore, the "American-style way" did not mean that farmers had happy lives, and compared with "Prussian-style way", the farmers'suffering in the "American-style way" had not been reduced much.