# data[].attributes.body
the song Elbow room connects with Manifest Destiny because its tells the history of the Westward Expansion from the perspective of the white settlers. In this song it uses specialized languages and ideas to portray this idea

# data[].attributes.body
manifest destiny is what made the people decide to go west. it inspired people to explore and settle in the west. Manifest Destiny brought money, land, resources, and a strengthened economy to the Americans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Manifest Destiny also had a substantial impact on the people of the United states, it is what made the people themselves decide to "Go West!" Manifest Destiny inspired people to explore and settle in the west. The abundance of land in the west, along with new markets, and personal economic problems of people in the east were reasons that people liked this idea, it was an answer to their problems. People were convinced that they would be better off attempting a fresh start in the West. After the last expansion, gold was discovered at Sutter's' Mill, bringing many more Americans from the East, and benefitting them greatly, even bringing in people from outside America. This revolutionized America's economy. Manifest Destiny brought money, land, resources, and a strengthened economy to the Americans.

There were also negative effects of Manifest Destiny. This idea that it was their destiny to expand caused Americans to disregard the territorial rights of Native Americans, wiping out many tribes and causing a cultural divide, tension and wars. The negative effect that this had on Native Americans were lasting effects. Manifest Destiny also caused war and tension with Mexico for the same reasons. Manifest Destiny caused americans to feel entitled, greedy, power hungry, they wanted to be the best, which are poor qualities to have. Another negative effect was the affect this had on slavery. With the expansion came more farms, which in turn meant a greater need for slave workers, although Manifest Destiny later brought on debates about slaves, helping to end slavery.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Manifest Destiny also had a substantial impact on the people of the United states, it is what made the people themselves decide to "Go West!" Manifest Destiny inspired people to explore and settle in the west.

# data[].attributes.body
some gold seekers came from eastern united states, also including Europe. Mexico, China, and South America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On January 24, 1848, gold was discovered at Sutter's Mill on the American River in Northern California. After James W. Marshall, who'd been overseeing the sawmill's construction, found the gold nuggets he and his boss, John Sutter, attempted to keep the discovery a secret. However, word soon spread and by 1849 thousands of prospectors, who became known as 49ers, were flocking to Coloma, California, site of Sutter's Mill, and the surrounding region, hoping to strike it rich.

The 49ers, most of whom were men, came from the eastern United States as well as other parts of the globe, including Europe, China, Mexico and South America. By the mid-1850s, more than 300,000 people had poured into California. (In San Francisco alone, the city's population soared from a thousand residents in 1848 to 20,000 citizens just two years later.) This huge influx of new arrivals helped speed up California's admittance to the Union as the 31st state in 1850, a mere two years after the U.S. had been awarded the territory under the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War. Of all those who came to California, some 49ers grew wealthy but it was the merchants-those that sold goods and services to the gold seekers-who typically made more money than the miners. In fact, James Marshall and John Sutter, the two men linked with the start of one of the most pivotal events in California history, never got rich.

A century after the Gold Rush, the 49ers were memorialized when San Francisco's first major league professional sports franchise, a football team, was named. The team, which started out as part of the All-America Football Conference (AAFC), a rival to the National Football League (NFL), played its first regular-season game in September 1946. When the AAFC folded three years later, the 49ers joined the NFL in 1950. In 1995, the San Francisco 49ers became the first NFL team to win five Super Bowls.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On January 24, 1848, gold was discovered at Sutter's Mill on the American River in Northern California. After James W. Marshall, who'd been overseeing the sawmill's construction, found the gold nuggets he and his boss, John Sutter, attempted to keep the discovery a secret.

# data[].attributes.body
the were worked hard, prices were high and living conditions were primitive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
California Gold Rush, rapid influx of fortune seekers in California that began after gold was found at Sutter's Mill in early 1848 and reached its peak in 1852. According to estimates, more than 300,000 people came to the territory during the Gold Rush.

In 1848 John Sutter was having a water-powered sawmill built along the American River in Coloma, California, approximately 50 miles (80 km) east of present-day Sacramento. On January 24 his carpenter, James W. Marshall, found flakes of gold in a streambed. Sutter and Marshall agreed to become partners and tried to keep their find a secret. News of the discovery, however, soon spread, and they were besieged by thousands of fortune seekers. (With his property overrun and his goods and livestock stolen or destroyed, Sutter was bankrupt by 1852.) From the East, prospectors sailed around Cape Horn or risked disease hiking across the Isthmus of Panama. The hardiest took the 2,000-mile (3,220-km) overland route, on which cholera proved a far greater killer than the Native Americans. By August 1848, 4,000 gold miners were in the area, and within a year about 80,000 "forty-niners" (as the fortune seekers of 1849 were called) had arrived at the California goldfields. By 1853 their numbers had grown to 250,000. Although it was estimated that some $2 billion in gold was extracted, few of the prospectors struck it rich. The work was hard, prices were high, and living conditions were primitive.

In what was a typical pattern, the Gold Rush slackened as the most-workable deposits were exhausted and organized capital and machinery replaced the efforts of individual miner-adventurers with more efficient and businesslike operations. Likewise, the lawless and violent mining camps gave way to permanent settlements with organized government and law enforcement. Those settlements that lacked other viable economic activities soon became ghost towns after the gold was exhausted. The California Gold Rush peaked in 1852, and by the end of the decade, it was over.

The Gold Rush had a profound impact on California, dramatically changing its demographics. Before the discovery of gold, the territory's population was approximately 160,000, the vast majority of whom were Native Americans. By about 1855, more than 300,000 people had arrived. Most were Americans, though a number of settlers also came from China, Europe, and South America. The massive influx gave rise to numerous cities and towns, with San Francisco gaining particular prominence. The Gold Rush was credited with hastening statehood for California in 1850.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California Gold Rush | Definition, History, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Overview of the California Gold Rush, the rapid influx of fortune seekers in California that began after gold was found at Sutter's Mill on the American River in early 1848. The Gold Rush reached its peak in 1852. According to estimates, more than 300,000 people came to the territory during the Gold Rush.

# data[].attributes.body
long term effects were the migration and population and CALI was recognized as a state 2 years after gold was discovered.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Effects Of The California Gold Rush

California was rich in resources, minerals and metals. When America bought California from Mexico after the American Mexican War, the regions were yet to be fully discovered and used by the whites.

When James Wilson Marshall discovered a glittering gold metal on 24, January 1848, little did he realize that California would soon see an influx of hundreds of thousands of whites into the land that was previously left uninhabited.

Effects of California Gold rush:

California was recognized as a state two years after the precious yellow metal was discovered.

A large influx of whites in the region led to the devastation of agricultural lands that were in use for centuries by the local natives. Although the initial influx of miners was greeted with pleasure because an increase in population in the region would automatically mean that there would be increased demands for food and other crops, later on, the natives realized the widespread destruction that was being caused to the farmlands due to increased settlements and industrialization in the region.

Native Americans living in the region did not resist to the initial settlement of the whites in the region. The locals were employed for mining purposes. This way, they were getting additional employment and salary for working in the fields in search of gold. Later on, with large numbers of whites entering the region, they quite simply refused to accept the locals in the region. This led to thousands of Indians being forced to flee their homeland due to the aggressive and ruthless nature of the whites.

The whites who wanted to make a permanent settlement in the region destroyed the natural surrounding and the environment. Loss of thousands of animals led to permanent destruction of fauna and flora.

More Articles :

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Effects Of The California Gold Rush California was rich in resources, minerals and metals. When America bought California from Mexico after the American Mexican War, the regions were yet to be fully discovered and used by the whites.

# data[].attributes.body
The move to the Great Plains presented an opportunity for European immigrants to escape poverty in their home countries, African American settlers also moved to the Great Plains to start their lives as free men, Land prices in the East were getting too expensive, and the Great Plains offered an opportunity for more people to own land.

# data[].attributes.body
the immediate effects were great economic growth, increased population, new towns appeared, jobs were created.

# data[].attributes.body
after gold was discovered, it dramaticly impacted California. It prompted one of the largest migrations in U.S. history. it led to creation of boomtowns, rapid economic growth and prosperity as well as the buildings of railroads, churches and banks to adapt to newcomers. all of this allowed Cali to qualify for statehood in 1850.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Historical Impact of the California Gold Rush

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The California Gold Rush of 1849-1855 radically transformed California, the United States and the world. It prompted one of the largest migrations in U.S. history, with hundreds of thousands of migrants across the United States and the globe coming to California to find gold in the foothills of the…

# data[].attributes.body
white settlers wanted it for themselves, there was many native americans all they all wanted to spread across the land

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 'Indian Problem'

White Americans, particularly those who lived on the western frontier, often feared and resented the Native Americans they encountered: To them, American Indians seemed to be an unfamiliar, alien people who occupied land that white settlers wanted (and believed they deserved).

Some officials in the early years of the American republic, such as President George Washington, believed that the best way to solve this "Indian problem" was to simply "civilize" the Native Americans. The goal of this civilization campaign was to make Native Americans as much like white Americans as possible by encouraging them convert to Christianity, learn to speak and read English and adopt European-style economic practices such as the individual ownership of land and other property (including, in some instances in the South, enslaved persons).

In the southeastern United States, many Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, Creek and Cherokee people embraced these customs and became known as the "Five Civilized Tribes."

Did you know? Indian removal took place in the Northern states as well. In Illinois and Wisconsin, for example, the bloody Black Hawk War in 1832 opened to white settlement millions of acres of land that had belonged to the Sauk, Fox and other native nations.

But the Native Americans' land, located in parts of Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, Florida and Tennessee, was valuable, and it grew to be more coveted as white settlers flooded the region. Many of these whites yearned to make their fortunes by growing cotton, and often resorted to violent means to take land from their Indigenous neighbors. They stole livestock; burned and looted houses and towns; committed mass murder; and squatted on land that did not belong to them.

Worcester v. Georgia

State governments joined in this effort to drive Native Americans out of the South. Several states passed laws limiting Native American sovereignty and rights and encroaching on their territory.

In Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the U.S. Supreme Court objected to these practices and affirmed that native nations were sovereign nations "in which the laws of Georgia [and other states] can have no force."

Even so, the maltreatment continued. As President Andrew Jackson noted in 1832, if no one intended to enforce the Supreme Court's rulings (which he certainly did not), then the decisions would "[fall]...still born." Southern states were determined to take ownership of Indian lands and would go to great lengths to secure this territory.

Indian Removal Act

Andrew Jackson had long been an advocate of what he called "Indian removal." As an Army general, he had spent years leading brutal campaigns against the Creeks in Georgia and Alabama and the Seminoles in Florida-campaigns that resulted in the transfer of hundreds of thousands of acres of land from Indian nations to white farmers.

As president, he continued this crusade. In 1830, he signed the Indian Removal Act, which gave the federal government the power to exchange Native-held land in the cotton kingdom east of the Mississippi for land to the west, in the "Indian colonization zone" that the United States had acquired as part of the Louisiana Purchase. This "Indian territory" was located in present-day Oklahoma.

The law required the government to negotiate removal treaties fairly, voluntarily and peacefully: It did not permit the president or anyone else to coerce Native nations into giving up their ancestral lands. However, President Jackson and his government frequently ignored the letter of the law and forced Native Americans to vacate lands they had lived on for generations.

Trail of Tears

In the winter of 1831, under threat of invasion by the U.S. Army, the Choctaw became the first nation to be expelled from its land altogether. They made the journey to Indian Territory on foot (some "bound in chains and marched double file," one historian writes), and without any food, supplies or other help from the government.

Thousands of people died along the way. It was, one Choctaw leader told an Alabama newspaper, a "trail of tears and death."

The Indian-removal process continued. In 1836, the federal government drove the Creeks from their land for the last time: 3,500 of the 15,000 Creeks who set out for Oklahoma did not survive the trip.

Treaty of New Echota

The Cherokee people were divided: What was the best way to handle the government's determination to get its hands on their territory? Some wanted to stay and fight. Others thought it was more pragmatic to agree to leave in exchange for money and other concessions.

In 1835, a few self-appointed representatives of the Cherokee nation negotiated the Treaty of New Echota, which traded all Cherokee land east of the Mississippi - roughly 7 million acres - for $5 million, relocation assistance and compensation for lost property.

To the federal government, the treaty (signed in New Echota, Georgia) was a done deal, but a majority of the Cherokee felt betrayed. Importantly, the negotiators did not represent the tribal government or anyone else. Most Cherokee people considered the Treaty of New Echota fraudulent, and the Cherokee National Council voted in 1836 to reject it.

John Ross

"The instrument in question is not the act of our nation," wrote the nation's principal chief, John Ross, in a letter to the U.S. Senate protesting the Treaty of New Echota. "We are not parties to its covenants; it has not received the sanction of our people." Nearly 16,000 Cherokees signed Ross's petition, but Congress approved the treaty anyway.

By 1838, only about 2,000 Cherokees had left their Georgia homeland for Indian Territory. President Martin Van Buren sent General Winfield Scott and 7,000 soldiers to expedite the removal process. Scott and his troops forced the Cherokee into stockades at bayonet point while his men looted their homes and belongings.

Then, they marched the Indians more than 1,200 miles to Indian Territory. Whooping cough, typhus, dysentery, cholera and starvation were epidemic along the way. Historians estimate that more than 5,000 Cherokee died as a result of the journey.

Legacy of the Trail of Tears

By 1840, tens of thousands of Native Americans had been driven off of their land in the southeastern states and forced to move across the Mississippi to Indian Territory. The federal government promised that their new land would remain unmolested forever, but as the line of white settlement pushed westward, "Indian Country" shrank and shrank. In 1907, Oklahoma became a state and Indian Territory was considered lost.

A 2020 decision by the Supreme Court, however, highlighted ongoing interest in Native American territorial rights. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that a huge area of Oklahoma is still considered an American Indian reservation.

This decision left the state of Oklahoma unable to prosecute Native Americans accused of crimes on those tribal lands - only federal and tribal law enforcement can prosecute such crimes. (A later 2022 Supreme Court decision rolled back some provisions of the 2020 court finding.)

The Trail of Tears - actually a network of different routes - is over 5,000 miles long and covers nine states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Tennessee. Today, the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail is run by the National Park Service and portions of it are accessible on foot, by horse, by bicycle or by car.

Sources

Trail of Tears. NPS.gov.
Trail of Tears. Museum of the Cherokee Indian.
The Treaty of New Echota and the Trail of Tears. North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources.
The Treaty That Forced the Cherokee People from Their Homelands Goes on View. Smithsonian Magazine.
Justices rule swath of Oklahoma remains tribal reservation. Associated Press.
Justices limit 2020 ruling on tribal lands in Oklahoma. Associated Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trail of Tears: Definition, Date & Cherokee Nation - HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Trail of Tears was the deadly route Native Americans were forced to follow when they were pushed off their ancestral lands and into Oklahoma by the Indian Removal Act of 1830.

# data[].attributes.body
assimilation- the process of adopting the language and culture of a dominate social group or nation.
newcomers learned u.s. culture, made a commitiment to build roots in this country, and came to indentify as Americans. some arrived with a strong desire to assimilate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immigration has emerged as a decisive - and sharply divisive - issue in the United States. Skepticism about whether new arrivals can assimilate into American society was a key concern in the 2016 presidential election and remains an ongoing theme in the public debate on immigration policy. This controversy is not new. The U.S. has experienced repeated waves of hostility toward immigrants and today's concerns echo alarms sounded often in the past. Both today and in earlier times, many in this country have viewed immigrants as a threat to the integrity of the nation's culture, fearing that foreigners among us somehow make America less American. Consider the following statement: Immigration "is bringing to the country people whom it is very difficult to assimilate and who do not promise well for the standard of civilization in the United States." The speaker was not Donald Trump on the campaign trail but Massachusetts Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge in 1891.

The immigration debate raises a fundamental issue: Are immigrants able to successfully integrate into American society by adopting the economic, social, and cultural norms of native-born Americans? Or are they likely to remain an alien presence inside our borders long after they settle here? This argument typically generates more heat than light. Many people have opinions on the subject, but relatively little empirical evidence is available on how fully and quickly immigrants assimilate into U.S. culture.

Leah Boustan of UCLA, Katherine Eriksson of UC Davis, and I have tried to fill part of this gap by looking at immigration during the Age of Mass Migration from 1850 to 1913, when U.S. borders were open and 30 million Europeans picked up stakes to move here. By the early 20th century, some 15 percent of the U.S. population was foreign born, comparable to the share today. If we want to know how today's newcomers will fare, we can find important clues by examining what happened to those who arrived on our shores during the greatest surge of immigration in U.S. history.

In our previous work on immigration, my co-authors and I looked at occupation data of immigrants who arrived during the Age of Mass Migration.[1] The classic narrative is that penniless immigrants worked low-paying jobs to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, eventually reaching equality of skills and income with natives. We found that story to be largely a myth. On average, long-term immigrants and natives held jobs at similar skill levels and climbed the occupational ladder at about the same pace. We did find considerable variation though. Immigrants from richer countries, such as England or Germany, often worked in higher-skilled occupations than natives, while those from poorer countries, such as Italy or Russia, often were in less-skilled occupations. But, regardless of the starting point, the initial gaps between immigrants and natives persisted throughout their lives. These findings provide useful data on the experiences of immigrants in the U.S. labor market. But it's important to stress that even immigrants who lag economically may successfully assimilate into American society.

Measuring cultural assimilation is a challenge because data on cultural practices-things like food, dress, and accent-are not systematically collected. But the names that parents choose for their children are collected, offering a revealing window into the cultural assimilation process.[2] Using 2 million census records from 1920 and 1940, we constructed a foreignness index indicating the probability that a given name would be held by a foreigner or a native.

For example, people with names like Hyman or Vito were almost certain to be children of immigrants, while youngsters with names like Clay or Lowell were likely to have native parents. In this respect, children's names are signals of cultural identity. Giving a child an American-sounding name is a financially cost-free way of identifying with U.S. culture. Thus, we can trace the assimilation process by examining changes in the names immigrants gave their offspring as they spent more time in the U.S.

Our key finding is that for immigrants who arrived in the 1900s and 1910s, the more time they spent in the U.S., the less likely they were to give their children foreign-sounding names. Figure 1 shows that after 20 years in this country, half of the gap in name choice between immigrants and natives had disappeared. The shift in name choice happened at a roughly equal pace for sons and daughters and among poor and rich families.

However, the pace varied significantly depending on country of origin. Immigrants from Norway, Sweden, and Denmark were among the quickest to adopt American-sounding names, followed by Italians and other Southern Europeans. Russians, including many Russian Jews, and Finns had the slowest rates of name-based assimilation. This convergence of names chosen by immigrant and native populations is suggestive evidence of cultural assimilation. But the fact that immigrants didn't fully adopt native naming patterns suggests that many valued retaining a distinct cultural identity.

Having an American-sounding name was a badge of assimilation that conferred genuine economic and social benefits. We looked at census records of more than a million children of immigrants from 1920, when they lived with their childhood families, through 1940, when they were adults.

Children with less-foreign-sounding names completed more years of schooling, earned more, and were less likely to be unemployed than their counterparts whose names sounded more foreign. In addition, they were less likely to marry someone born abroad or with a foreign-sounding name. These patterns held even among brothers within the same family. The data suggest that, while a foreign-sounding name reinforced a sense of ethnic identity, it may have exposed individuals to discrimination at school or on the job.

Other measures reinforce the picture of early 20th century immigrants gradually taking on American cultural markers. By 1930, more than two-thirds of immigrants had applied for citizenship and almost all reported they could speak some English. A third of first-generation immigrants who arrived unmarried and more than half of second-generation immigrants wed spouses from outside their cultural group.

These findings suggest that over time immigrants' sense of separateness weakened and their identification with U.S. culture grew stronger. The gradual adoption of American-sounding names appears to have been part of a process of assimilation in which newcomers learned U.S. culture, made a commitment to build roots in this country, and came to identify as Americans.

Some may have arrived with a strong desire to assimilate, but little knowledge of how to do so. They may not even have known which names were common in the U.S. Others may not have cared about assimilating at first, but eventually felt the urge to blend in. In both cases, as time went by, they may have started to navigate the dominant culture with greater ease. Their children may have attended schools with children from other cultures and have spoken with American accents.

What does this tell us about the assimilation process? We can imagine that after many years in the U.S., immigrants, like natives, become baseball fans, eat hamburgers, and watch fireworks on the Fourth of July. To be sure, their connections with their countries of origin are not obliterated. Instead, they may come to see themselves as hyphenated Americans, but Americans nonetheless.

What's more, policies that attempt to force cultural assimilation on immigrants may backlash. Fouka (2015) finds that German immigrants in states that introduced anti-German language policies during World War I responded by choosing visibly German names, perhaps as a show of community support.[3]

Concerns about the economic effects of immigration go hand in hand with fears that immigrants will remain a culturally foreign presence in our midst. How immigration affects the income and living standards of natives and how newcomers contribute to the U.S. economy are hot-button issues. My research partners and I are in the process of investigating these questions. Based on the existing literature and our own research, we hypothesize that the economic impact of immigration today may be different from the effects during the Age of Mass Migration.[4] In the early 20th century, foreign-born and native workers competed for the same low-skilled jobs and immigrants may have driven down wages of those born here. Today, the competition between immigrants and natives may be less important because immigrants tend to cluster in a limited set of occupations at the top and bottom of income distribution.

The historical evidence presented here should be considered with care. Today's immigrants differ markedly in ethnicity, education, and occupation from those who came during the Age of Mass Migration. Over the past half century, the U.S. has experienced a second wave of mass migration with characteristics that set it apart from what took place in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The contemporary migration wave is highly regulated, favoring those with money, education, and skills and drawing migrants primarily from Asia and Latin America. Selection of immigrants today is often positive, meaning those who come here are more highly skilled than their compatriots who stay in their countries of origin. In the past, immigrants were sometimes negatively selected, meaning they were less skilled than those who stayed behind. Finally, legal immigration now is accompanied by a large undocumented inflow, which complicates efforts to study immigration effects.

Much work remains to be done to understand the cultural and economic dimensions of immigration and the differences between the past and the present. My research colleagues and I recently got access to California birth certificate records, which will allow us to compare immigrants from current and historical periods to see whether assimilation patterns are similar.

Overall though, lessons from the Age of Mass Migration suggest that fears immigrants can't fit into American society are misplaced. It would be a mistake to determine our nation's immigration policy based on the belief that immigrants will remain foreigners, preserving their old ways of life and keeping themselves at arm's length from the dominant culture. The evidence is clear that assimilation is real and measurable, that over time immigrant populations come to resemble natives, and that new generations form distinct identities as Americans.

[1] Ran Abramitzky, Leah Platt Boustan, and Katherine Eriksson. (2014). "A Nation of Immigrants: Assimilation and Economic Outcomes in the Age of Mass Migration." Journal of Political Economy. 122(3): 467-506.

[2] Ran Abramitzky, Leah Platt Boustan, and Katherine Eriksson. (2016). "Cultural Assimilation During the Age of Mass Migration." Working paper, and references therein.

[3] Vasiliki Fouka. (2015). "Backlash: The Unintended Effects of Language Prohibition in U.S. Schools after World War I." Manuscript.

[4] Ran Abramitzky, and Leah Platt Boustan. (2016a). "Immigration in American Economic History." NBER Working Paper No. 21882, and references therein.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What history tells us about assimilation of immigrants

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Immigration has emerged as a decisive - and sharply divisive - issue in the United States. Skepticism about whether new arrivals can assimilate into American society was a key concern in the 2016 presidential election and remains an ongoing theme in the public debate on immigration policy. This controversy is not new.

# data[].attributes.body
the government tried to get them to sell their land. the government wanted the Indians to move to reservations. The Plains Indians did not want to live and farm on the
reservations. The reservations were small. The land was poor.
Most of the Indians were not farmers. They were hunters.

# data[].attributes.body
horses and cattle, few possessions and livestock, a route to the far west, made land avaliable for settlers from the u.s.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Great Plains - Native Tribes, Agriculture, Cattle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Great Plains - Native Tribes, Agriculture, Cattle: The Great Plains were sparsely populated until about 1600. Spanish colonists from Mexico had begun occupying the southern plains in the 16th century and had brought with them horses and cattle. The introduction of the horse subsequently gave rise to…

# data[].attributes.body
technology wise, indoor vertical farming was invented along with automation and robotics, livestock technology, modern greenhouse practices, precision agriculture, block chain, and artificial intelligence. the first hoes and the plow was also invented.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Innovation is more important in modern agriculture than ever before. The industry as a whole is facing huge challenges: from rising costs of supplies and labor shortages to changes in consumer preferences for transparency and sustainability. There is increasing recognition from agriculture corporations that immediate solutions are needed for these challenges. Thankfully agriculture technology, also known as agtech is here.

This new concept refers to the use of technology in farming and agricultural practices to increase efficiency, productivity, and sustainability in food production. It includes several different types of technologies, such as precision agriculture, smart irrigation, biotechnology, and automation. Additionally, there are significant technological advancements in areas like indoor vertical farming, livestock technology, modern greenhouse practices, artificial intelligence, and blockchain, which we will explore further in this article.

Indoor Vertical Farming

Indoor vertical farming can increase crop yields, overcome limited land area, and even reduce farming's impact on the environment by cutting down the distance traveled in the supply chain. This new concept can be defined as the practice of growing produce stacked one above another in a closed and controlled environment. Its key attribute is that it can significantly reduce the amount of land space needed to grow plants compared to traditional farming methods.

Vertical agriculture has the added value that in some setups it doesn't require soil for plants to grow. Most are either hydroponic -the plants grow in a nutrient-dense bowl of water, or aeroponic, where the plant roots are systematically sprayed with water and nutrients.

Vertical farms use up to 70% less water than traditional farms.

From sustainable urban growth to maximizing crop yield with reduced labor costs, the advantages of indoor vertical farming are apparent. This new agriculture technology can control variables such as light, humidity, and water to precisely measure year-round, increasing food production with reliable harvests.

Labor is also greatly reduced by using robots to handle harvesting, planting, and logistics, solving the challenge farms face from the current labor shortage in the agriculture industry.

The benefits of farm automation

Farm automation, often associated with "smart farming", is a technology that makes farms more efficient, as it automates the crop or livestock production cycle. An increasing number of AgTech companies are working on robotics innovation to develop drones, autonomous tractors, robotic harvesters, automatic watering, and seeding robots. Although these technologies are fairly new, the industry has seen an increasing number of traditional agriculture companies adopt farm automation into their processes, as its primary goal is to cover monotonous tasks.

Livestock farming technology

The traditional livestock industry is a sector that is arguably the most important yet widely overlooked sector, as it provides much-needed renewable natural resources that we rely on every day.

Traditionally known as running the business of farms, cattle ranches, and other related agribusinesses, livestock management involves maintaining accurate financial records, supervising workers, and ensuring the proper care and feeding of animals. However, technological advancements in agriculture are revolutionizing the world of animal husbandry. These developments have greatly improved the industry, making the tracking and managing of livestock much easier and faster.

Livestock technology can enhance the productivity, welfare, and management of animals and livestock.

The "connected cow" concept is the result of equipping herds with sensors to monitor their health and increase productivity. By attaching individual wearable sensors to cows, producers can keep track of daily activity and health-related issues and make operational decisions quickly and easily.

Animal genomics is a new type of agriculture technology that can be defined as the study of the entire gene landscape of a living animal and how its interaction with others can influence the animal's growth and development. Genomics helps livestock producers understand the genetic risk of their herds and determine the future profitability of their livestock. So, by being strategic with animal selection and breeding decisions, producers can optimize the profitability and yields of livestock herds.

Agtech has huge benefits for the industry. Data-driven decision-making leads to better and more efficient decisions that will improve the productivity of livestock herds.

Modern greenhouses

In recent decades, the greenhouse industry has transformed from small facilities used primarily for research and aesthetic purposes (i.e., botanic gardens) to much larger facilities that compete directly with land-based conventional food production. Combined, the entire global greenhouse market currently produces about $350 billion worth of vegetables annually, of which U.S. production comprises less than 1%.

Today, in large part due to the tremendous recent improvements in growing technology, the industry is witnessing a blossoming like no time before. Greenhouses are increasingly emerging that are large-scale, capital-infused, and urban-centered.

The entire global greenhouse market currently produces nearly US $350 billion in vegetables annually.

As the market has grown dramatically, it has also experienced clear trends in recent years. Modern greenhouses are becoming increasingly tech-heavy, using LED lights and automated control systems to perfectly tailor the growing environment. Successful greenhouse companies are scaling significantly and locating their growing facilities near urban hubs to capitalize on the ever-increasing demand for local food.

To accomplish these feats, the greenhouse industry is becoming increasingly capital-infused, using venture funding and other sources to build out the infrastructure to compete in the current market.

Precision agriculture technology

Agriculture is undergoing an evolution - technology is becoming an indispensable part of every commercial farm. New precision agriculture companies are developing technologies that allow farmers to maximize yields by controlling every variable of crop farming such as moisture levels, soil conditions, and microclimates. By providing more accurate techniques for planting and growing crops, precision agriculture enables farmers to increase efficiency and manage costs.

Precision agriculture companies have found a huge opportunity to grow. A recent report by Grand View Research, Inc. predicts the precision agriculture market to reach $43.4 billion by 2025. The emerging new generation of farmers is attracted to faster, more flexible startups that systematically maximize crop yields.

Blockchain and food traceability

Blockchain's ability to track owner records and tamper with security can be used to solve pressing problems in the current food system such as food fraud, safety recalls, supply chain inefficiencies, and food traceability. Its unique decentralized structure ensures verified products and practices, creating a transparent marketplace.

Food traceability has been at the center of recent food safety discussions, particularly with new advancements in blockchain applications. Due to the nature of perishable food, the food industry is extremely vulnerable to making mistakes that would ultimately affect human lives.

Blockchain can be used to solve urgent issues such as food fraud, safety recalls, supply chain inefficiency, and food traceability in the current food system.

Traceability is essential for the food supply chain. The current communication framework within the food ecosystem makes traceability a time-consuming task, since some parties are still tracking information on paper. The blockchain structure ensures that data points can be generated and shared securely by all parties along the food value chain, an accountable and traceable system.

Vast data points with proprietary labels can be recorded immediately without modification. As a result, a record of food movement from farm to table can be monitored in real-time.

The use cases of blockchain in food go beyond ensuring food safety. It also adds value to the current market by establishing a ledger in the network and balancing market pricing. The traditional price mechanism for buying and selling relies on the judgments of the involved players, rather than the information provided by the entire value chain. Giving access to data would create a holistic picture of supply and demand, a marketplace with immense transparency.

Agriculture and artificial intelligence

These can monitor plant health, soil conditions, temperature, humidity, and more. The idea is to give farmers a better understanding of what's happening on the ground through advanced technology that can tell them more than the naked eye can see. And not only is it more accurate, it's also faster.

With remote sensors, algorithms interpret field perimeters as statistical data that farmers can understand and use in their decision-making. Algorithms process data and adapt and learn based on the data received. The more inputs and statistics collected, the better the algorithm can predict different outcomes. The goal is to enable farmers to use this artificial intelligence to make better decisions in the field, thereby achieving their goals of better harvests.

Plug and Play's Agtech innovation platform boosts startups through corporate business development, networking, pitch events, world-class mentoring, and investment possibilities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Agriculture Technology in Modern Farming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn how modern farmers are using new agriculture technology to increase their productivity and sustainability. Find out more about the advantages of this latest innovation and its potential to revolutionize farming as we know it.

# data[].attributes.body
they faced droughts, infertile land and scams from land owners. summers were extremely hot and dry and winters were brutal and long. lack of fertilizers and lack of seeds also occured.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Yet despite these advances, the American farmer in the nineteenth century was subject to recurring periods of critical hardship. Indeed, at the close of the century of greatest agricultural expansion, the dilemma of the farmer had become a major problem. Several basic factors were involved-soil exhaustion, the vagaries of nature, overproduction of staple crops, decline in self-sufficiency, and lack of adequate legislative protection and aid. Southern soil had long been exhausted by tobacco and cotton culture, but in the west, and on the plains too, soil erosion, wind storms, and insect pests ravaged the land.

The swift mechanization of agriculture west of the Mississippi had not proved an unmixed blessing. It encouraged many farmers to expand their holdings unwisely; it stimulated concentration on staple crops; it gave large farmers a distinct advantage over small ones and hastened, at once, the development of tenancy and of farming on an extremely large scale. These problems were to remain largely unsolved until the widespread acceptance of modern soil conservation techniques many years later.

Even more complex, but more readily susceptible to swift remedial action, was the problem of prices. The farmer sold his product in a competitive world market but purchased his supplies, equipment, and household goods in a market protected against competition. The price he got for his wheat and cotton or beef was determined abroad; the price he paid for his harvester, his fertilizer, his barbed wire was fixed by trusts setting prices behind a protective tariff. From 1870 to 1890 prices of most farm products moved irregularly downward, and the value of American farm products increased only half a billion dollars. In the same period, however, the value of manufactures increased by six billion dollars.

This economic unbalance led to the formation of farmers' organizations to consider common grievances and propose means of relief. Most of these were patterned after the Grange established in 1867. Within a few years, there were Granges in almost every state, and membership exceeded three-quarters of a million. These groups began chiefly as social organizations designed to lessen the farmer's isolation. Inevitably, however, their members turned to discussions of business and politics. Talk led to action, and soon many of the Granges set up cooperative marketing organizations, cooperative stores, and even factories. In a number of midwestern states, they elected members to the legislature and passed laws regulating railroads and warehouses. Many of the Grange business enterprises failed, however, and at the same time, the farms enjoyed a resurgence of prosperity in the late seventies. In consequence, the Grange dwindled in importance. The movement it had started, however, revived in the Farmers' Alliances which began in the late eighties and early nineties. Times were once more hard; drought had descended on the stricken plains; the price of wheat and cotton plunged. Thus stimulated, the Alliance movement spread quickly and by 1890 it had nearly two million members. In addition to an extensive educational program, these groups made active demands for political reform. Before long, the Alliances were metamorphosed into a crusading political party. Known as the Populists, they vigorously opposed the old Democratic and Republican parties.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Yet despite these advances, the American farmer in the nineteenth century was subject to recurring periods of critical hardship. Indeed, at the close of the century of greatest agricultural expansion, the dilemma of the farmer had become a major problem.