Free Locust by Jeffrey A. Lockwood Page A

cosmic retribution, leaves no doubt that this disaster was a divine punishment:
    But the dear Lord did not want to make any exceptions . . . we at once saw our hopes destroyed, for the Lord ordered them to swallow up also the few fields in our neighborhood, which had been spared up to this time. . . . So has the Lord overlooked not one in his punishment. . . . All the 60 families in my two congregations, of whom the greater part are here, 1-2 & 3 years, without means, yea many of them who came here poor with many little children have not had one harvest yet, but have made their living by working for others.
    If the locust invasions were deserved by those who suffered from the consequent hunger and poverty, then the social reaction to the besieged farmers was at least largely consistent. The victims were widely viewed as impoverished mendicants, whose situation—even if not a result of having angered God—was evidence of a sinful lack of character.
    The less widely held theological interpretation of the locust invasions was that the swarms were of demonic origin. Perhaps the most impassioned case for this view came from a Minnesota pioneer who
lamented, “The Lord only knows which harmed the poor settlers more, the prowling Red-skins who were wont to sally forth from the hills and uplands or the green imps of satan the grasshoppers, which pounced upon us in bewildering hordes—both literally took the bread out of our mouths.” In this view, the godless natives along with the locusts (and presumably the wolves and other creatures that menaced the settlers) were all part of a diabolical plot. The wilderness was often perceived as a dark and foreboding place, so it was sensible to assert that the swarms were an outpouring of evil from this depraved land. The homesteader was something of an agrarian missionary, converting the heathen wilderness into an orderly garden. If the homesteaders lost their land to the locusts, then they were simply unfortunate victims of satanic forces.
    This religious view was consistent with the social interpretation of the locust-besieged settlers as deserving of assistance. These bedraggled farmers were victims of evildoers, as opposed to the unworthy poor who parasitized the hardworking sectors of American society. After all, the poor, hungry settlers were the salt of the earth, yeoman farmers building the nation from the ground up. The locusts had destroyed their crops but not their virtue. Such an appeal was made on behalf of the Kansas homesteaders:
    With emphasis we assert, that our suffering people are not wanting in enterprise nor courage, nor in any of the elements of true manhood. The uncomplaining patience with which even women and children are enduring the misfortunes that have fallen upon them, is nothing short of heroic. Our people have not lost faith in themselves, nor in the resources and prospects of the State in which they live, nor in Him without whom not a sparrow falls to the ground.
    But during the peak of the locust outbreaks in the 1870s, the nation was in the grip of an economic depression. There was plenty of suffering concentrated in the cities, so there was not much sympathy to spare for the scattered farmers. Factories were fast replacing farms as the financial heart and cultural soul of the growing nation. Moreover, the homesteaders had already been offered free land:
How much more public largess could they expect? The hardships of the frontier—including blizzards, droughts, loneliness, Indians, and locusts—were viewed as “part of the deal.” But if providing physical assistance was a matter of intense debate and social reluctance, spiritual aid was rather less costly and somewhat more graciously given.

CHURCH AND STATE
    Whether deserved or gratuitous, divine or demonic, the locust outbreaks required some response from religious leaders. The churches played a very limited role in providing physical aid, although it should be said that their capacity in this