TO IMPROVE THE SOIL AND THE MIND. 
New Series. ALBANY, AUGUST, 1852. Vol. IX.—No. 8. 
The Present Position of the Farmer. 
As time rolls onward, there are periods in the social, 
as well as the political world, which are marked by more 
than ordinary interest. Such a period is now before us 
in the agricultural world. There never was a time when 
agriculture, as an occupation, was so well thought of and 
so favorably looked upon, as at this moment. The tide 
against which we have so long struggled, seems really 
about to turn, and many who formerly thought that the 
farmer’s life was one of increasing toil, and that the far¬ 
mer himself had no need of much more intelligence than 
the animal who aided him in his labor, really begin to 
think that it is possible for him to become a rational, 
thinking man, and through the aid of his intelligence to 
benefit his condition. True—there has been much eulo¬ 
gy pronounced upon the life of the farmer by some indi¬ 
viduals in other occupationsj for example, the politician, 
anxious to secure his election, has complimented the ag¬ 
riculturist to the fullest extent. He has called him the 
sinew of the country—the bone and muscle of the state, 
the sine qua non of society—while at the same time he 
has used him as a tool, wherewith he has worked him¬ 
self into office, but he has taken good care, after once in¬ 
stalled, to do nothing whatever for the benefit of agricul¬ 
ture . The merchant compliments agriculture, and talks of 
the beauties and charms of a country life—he sighs for the 
time when he can retire from the cares of business, and set¬ 
tle himself upon a farm. So too, the lawyer, the doctor 
—each in turn, long for the hour when they may lead a 
farmer's life. Indeed, farming seems to these men a kind 
of Eldorado, a perfect elysium, a resting place from all 
their labors. But this idea of farming is very different 
from the life that the practical agriculturist is leading. 
Few of the classes spoken of would like to become work¬ 
ing farmers, or be dependent upon their farms for a sup¬ 
port. All they mean is simply, that having accumulated 
money in other occupations, they are willing to spend a 
portion of it in rural pleasures. 
What then is it, about what is called practical agricul¬ 
ture, that ceases to attract men to it, and even drives 
them from its ranks? But one answer to this question 
meets us on every side—its hard labor and small profit! 
And looking about through many sections of the coun¬ 
try, seeing how many farmers live, (or rather exist,) one 
might almost be inclined to submit fully to the answer, 
and join in the general saying, that farming is truly all 
work and no profit, or very little at least. Look at that 
man, says onej he has toiled, toiled, toiled, through lorg^ 
days and weary years, and what has he made—some¬ 
thing to be sure—but what he has got has been gained 
more by saving than making. He has denied himself 
the fruit of his own labor. He has stinted himself and 
his family, and scarce allowed them the common neces¬ 
saries of life, and for what? Why to get a few paltry dol¬ 
lars together, that had he been engaged in any other bu¬ 
siness, he might have obtained with half the toil. Thus 
says the opposer of agriculture as an occupation, and he 
backs his assertion not by one case alone, but by scores. 
Now, for my own part, I have ever considered agricul¬ 
ture as<the most useful and honorable of all occupations, 
and as such, I am willing to stand by if through good 
and through evil report. I love its toils, for they are at 
least honest toils. I love its labors, for they are Heaven 
ordained. Nor do I believe a righteous Providence 
ever meant that an occupation, which is universally ack¬ 
nowledged, by great minds, at least, to be at the foun¬ 
tain head of all social prosperity, should be one so want¬ 
ing in attraction, and in the proper reward due to labor, 
as to drive from its ranks all men of refinement and in¬ 
telligence. Without wishing then, at present, to deny 
the objections so often urged against agriculture as an 
occupation, let us rather admit the facts of the case, and 
try to find out whether the occupation, or the men pur¬ 
suing it, are in fault, and then seek for the remedy. 
Now, if it could be proved, that no man had ever gain¬ 
ed a competency for his labor, through agriculture as an 
occupation, and that all men following it had been always 
obliged to restrict themselves to the greatest economy, in 
order to gain a livelihood—that it had never, in any in¬ 
stance, paid a fair profit on the capital invested—then, 
indeed, we might be somewhat disheartened, and might 
consider our case rather a hopeless one. But I think a 
very different state of things can be proved. The single 
case of Mr. More, who took the second premium from 
the New-York State Agricultural Society, in 1850, would 
of itself, set the matter at rest—for it has been truly said, 
that 11 whatever man has done, man may do.” So far as 
we can gather facts from Mr. More’s statement, we think 
the amount actually made upon his capital invested, is 
very large, and as Mr. M. himself, has been unable, 
through bodily weakness, to do any of the hard physical 
labor, his statement proves conclusively, that the head 
can be made to work upon a farm, to as good advantage 
as the hand. 
But again, in almost every county in this state, and 
others, where agricultural societies exist, men are found 
in the ranks of practical agriculture, contending for the 
