1859. 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



21 



his own hands, and constantly exercising a sound 

 iudgment in his operations. He took the first 

 premium on farms at the Connecticut State 

 Fair, in 1856. Our opinions are more in accord- 

 ance with his than ^yith those expressed by 

 Mr. Emerson ; but we like the objections of Mr. 

 E. because their tendency is to call out facts like 

 the above. 



For the Neic England Farmer. 

 THE FABMER'S POSITION". 

 "Pride still is aiming at the blest abodes." 



Mr. Editor: — This subject is rather hack- 

 neyed, I grant ; but the fact shows that the ru- 

 ral population take an interest in it, as they write 

 so frequently about it. With many of the senti- 

 ments of the various articles in the agricultural 

 journals relative to this Protean matter I hearti- 

 ly coincide. That the position of the farmer, who 

 owns his farm, and is obliged to work it for his 

 maintenance, is a position of average respectabil- 

 ity, profit, happiness, and rather superior as to 

 health, I am fully persuaded. But more than 

 this I am not prepared to admit. This paper is 

 devoted to the great agricultural interest of the 

 country ; but I suppose you, as agricultural edi- 

 tor, are not prepared to claim that it is the only 

 important interest, or that it can be made remu- 

 nerative without supporting, in return, those 

 other and varied interests. All men should not 

 be farmers, nor are all men fitted to be — in a 

 high state of civilization — whatever we may say 

 of the natural blessedness of farming. It seems 

 to be a law of progress, that the more advanced 

 civilization is, the more must labor be subdivided. 

 And in this state all vocations are reciprocally 

 dependant. Allow a correspondent who has an- 

 nually written more or less for your neat, inter- 

 esting and valuable periodical, ever since its ori- 

 gin, the freedom of saying, that he thinks many 

 of the articles which appear in the agricultural 

 ■ournals — on the particular vocation to which 

 they are devoted — to be over-wrought ; and, if 

 written by farmers, a little too self -laudatory . If 

 not written by practical farmers, they can have 

 but little or no claim to belief. I grant the fault 

 is common in other vocations ; but it may be no 

 less a fault in all. The profession of the law de- 

 mands the most learned men, though there is a 

 very strong suspicion that it can tolerate those 

 that are not the most honest ! And it claims to 

 be the royal road for those "seeking the bauble 

 reputation." Medicine also requires the greatest 

 amount of intelligence, and claims unsurpassed 

 honor, though it admits it is a little plethoric in 

 the varied apathies, and requires a- gentle, if not 

 a brisk, purging. The profession of theology 

 claims to be divine, and admits no superlative, or 

 even equal, in any vocation ; though its divinity 

 must be weak in proportion to its compass, if it 

 embrace all the 2^seudo religions of the present 

 business age. 



But I return to agricultural laudation, or exag- 

 geration — which is evidently injurious to the 

 cause it would foster, furnishes vulneral)le points 

 for attack, and leads young men of the country, 

 to turn their backs on what they know to be false, 

 and also upon the farm itself — at least till they 

 try their capacities somewhere else. 



In the monthly Fanner for October, I notice a 

 well written article on "Farmers' Sons as Schol- 

 ars," by Mr. Euler Norcross, of South Iladley — 

 though the hope expressed in his last paragraph 

 I think can never be realized — believing that the 

 profession of the farmer can never become one 

 of the 'Hearncd professions." That farmers' sons 

 frequently make better scholars than some oth- 

 ers, cannot be gainsaid ; but perhaps no better 

 than those of the mechanic, or laborer, or of any 

 other vocation, where the son has been drilled to 

 severe industry and economy. The poor and sed- 

 ulous student believes with Franklin (who 

 snatched his education from the universe, and 

 not a farmer's son either,) that ''A vocation to 

 be profitable must be worked." What Mr. N. 

 says of this class is very well ; though he ought 

 not to imply that they are all farmers' sons, or 

 that there can be no poverty, industry and schol- 

 arship anywhere else ! 



But passing to a more important point, I wish 

 I had faith to hope with him for the sublime re- 

 alization of the thoughts expressed in his last 

 paragraph ; but it — (my faith) — has shown me so 

 many "jadish tricks," and so seldom given me 

 anything but old and stern realities, that I am 

 reluctant to give it credit. Mr. N. says : 



"I hope the day may come when our farmers 

 and laborers shall rank first in point of education 

 among the people of the land ; when every far- 

 mer shall not be afraid to compare his education 

 with any college graduate. Then will labor really 

 be honored, and our laborers be truly our na- 

 tion's strength, the safeguard of our liberties and 

 our country's pride." 



The writer of the above, in his golden antici- 

 pations, does not say that he hopes farmers will 

 rank erpial to the "first in point of education," 

 but rank first ! How he is going to bring this 

 about, or how it is to come, he does not hint. I 

 am bound to suppose, however, that he expects 

 that the day is not far distant, when every man 

 intendedto labor on and carry on a farm for a 

 livelihood, must first be fitted for college, (occu- 

 pying two years,) then go to college and spend 

 four years, and then to fit him for his special 

 business, spend three years in a professional 

 "School of Agriculture" — like the lawyers, doc- 

 tors and ministers — before he can be in good 

 working order for the farm, or able "to compare 

 his education with any college graduate !" This 

 plan would be expensive, but we think all our 

 Universities would favor it, if no one else ! But 

 I am disposed to make the following query: 

 Which would be the wiser of two young men 

 having $1500 apiece, and intending to become 

 farmers, he who procured his collegiate education 

 first and then run the hazard of getting a farm 

 afterwards, or he who purchased his farm first, 

 and then afterwards educated himself in the best 

 manner his means would allow ? Mr. Norcross, 

 however, may not intend that farmers shall be 

 college-educated, but only as well educated. Per- 

 haps he means they shall be self-educated. This 

 would render the desirable state he hopes for 

 still more hopeless ; for instances of good self- 

 education are comparatively rare. Men do not 

 easily become a Franklin. We can more readily 

 carry his bundle of stockings and eat his rolls, 

 than acquire his philosophy. 



Although I cannot sympathize with Mr. N. in 



