Domestic Allotment Act I am trying to find information about the Domestic Allotment Act. I have lots of questions. What does it mean if I were to say the government was "paying for nothing?" What...

Domestic Allotment Act

I am trying to find information about the Domestic Allotment Act. I have lots of questions. What does it mean if I were to say the government was "paying for nothing?" What was the causes that forced the passage of the act and was it successful? What were its effects? Was it difficult for FDR to get it passed? Thank you for any help.

Asked on by chuckydd

5 Answers | Add Yours

rrteacher's profile pic

rrteacher | College Teacher | (Level 2) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

Radical, perhaps, though the US government had intervened to regulate surpluses through monetary policy before. As far as "un-American," I suppose that would depend on who you asked. The Supreme Court ruled that the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which contained many of the elements of the Domestic Allotment Act, unconstitutional, so I guess you could say they thought so.

The Domestic Allotment Act was an attempt to get around some of the stipulations made in that decision, as well as curbing abuses by landowners who often kept the checks their tenants received from the government for cutting production.  Farm subsidies are regularly used to regulate supply of agricultural goods today.

I think it was an aggressive plan, but to be honest, the times probably called for it. What was needed was systematic reform in farming techniques as well as stablization of prices, and the Domestic Allotment Act as well as the conservation education legislation that went along with it may have been the only way to make it happen.

pohnpei397's profile pic

pohnpei397 | College Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

It wasn't just overuse of the soil.  One of the problems was that there was overproduction during the Depression.  This made prices for crops go way down and made it even harder for farmers to make a living.  FDR pushed for this sort of law so as to reduce the amount of production without making farmers get into even more financial trouble.

litteacher8's profile pic

litteacher8 | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

Basically, the idea seemed to be to pay farmers not to plant crops on their land. This way, the land was conserved. Apparently, farmers overused soil and erosion became a problem. So this act was designed to protect farmers from losing money while their land was fallow.
chuckydd's profile pic

chuckydd | Student, College Freshman | (Level 3) eNoter

Posted on

Radical, perhaps, though the US government had intervened to regulate surpluses through monetary policy before. As far as "un-American," I suppose that would depend on who you asked. The Supreme Court ruled that the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which contained many of the elements of the Domestic Allotment Act, unconstitutional, so I guess you could say they thought so.

The Domestic Allotment Act was an attempt to get around some of the stipulations made in that decision, as well as curbing abuses by landowners who often kept the checks their tenants received from the government for cutting production.  Farm subsidies are regularly used to regulate supply of agricultural goods today.

I think it was an aggressive plan, but to be honest, the times probably called for it. What was needed was systematic reform in farming techniques as well as stablization of prices, and the Domestic Allotment Act as well as the conservation education legislation that went along with it may have been the only way to make it happen.

Great response. Thank You.

chuckydd's profile pic

chuckydd | Student, College Freshman | (Level 3) eNoter

Posted on

Was it a radical or unAmerican idea? Our course lectures seems to imply this.

We’ve answered 318,983 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question