The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
LANDLORD AND TENANT
ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
Dig ii Zed by
Goog [e
Research Monographs of
The Division of Social Research
Works Progress Administration
I
Six Rural Problem Areas,
Relief-Resources-Rehabilitation
II
Comparative Study of Rural Relief
and Non-relief Households
III
The Transient Unemployed
IV
Urban Workers on Relief
V
Landlord and Tenant on the Cotton Plantation
Digitized by
Google
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
DIVISION OF SOCIAL RESEARCH
LANDLORD AND TENANT
ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
BY
T. J. WOOFTER, JR.
Coordinator of Rural Research
w,th the collaborot1on of
GORDON BLACKWELL
HAROLD HOFFSOMMER
JAMES G MADDOX
JEAN M MASSELL
B. 0 WILLIAMS
WALLER WYNNE, JR.
RESEARCH MONOGRAPH
V
WASHINGTON
1936
, ~
r
_,.'
r
~
;
,
,.
,
r
r
,.
, r,
•
rr
r,.. ,
r
r,
; ;rn~itized by
Google
\\\JS~
\ '-(. (,
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
HARRY L. HOPKINS, Administrator
CORRINGTON GILL
HCWARD B. MYERS, Director
Ass;stant Admin,stro,or
01v1s10n of Social Research
343518
Dig,
zedbyGoogle
Digitized
by
Google
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
Washington, D. C., December 1, 1936
Sir:
I have the honor to transmit the findings of a study of
landlord-tenant relationships conducted int he seven southeastern
cotton States by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration.
This report includes social and economic data relating to persons
who have been of particular concern to the administrators of
programs of rural relief and rehabilitation. The findings are
basic not only to an understanding of relief problems but also
to the reconstruction of agrarian life in the South, and have
bearing on tenancy problems in other areas.
The study was made in the Div is ion of Social Research, under
the direction of Howard B. Myers, Director of the Division.
The collection and analysis of the data were done under the
supervision of T. J. Woofter, Jr., Coordinator of Rural Research,
with the assistance of Gordon Blackwell and Waller Wynne, Jr.
The report was
prepared by T. J. ',foofter,
Jr. and edited
by Ellen Winston. Special acknowledgment is made of the contri-
hutions of the following persons who collaborated in the preparation of certain chapters: Jean M. Hassell, chapter V, Credit;
James Maddox, chapter VI, Income; B. 0. Williams, chapter VIII,
Mobility; Harold Hoffsommer, chapter IX, Education; and Gordon
Blackwell, chapter X, Relief and Rehahilitation.
Respectfully submitted,
CORRINGTON GILL
Assistant Administrator
Hon. HARRY L.
HOPKINS
Works Progress Atlmtnistrator
D1g1:zed by
Google
Digitized by
Google
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction ................•.................. • • • • • • •
Suaary . ................ • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • · · · · · · · · · ·
Chapter I.
Chapter II.
Chapter III.
Chapter IV.
Chapter V.
xvii
xix
Plantation Areas and Tenant Classes ....
Characteristics of Plantation Area~ .•
Plantation Areas Suneyed ..•.......
Popuh t ion Trends and Plantation Labor
Tenant Classes •••••••••••••..•.•.....
Ownership..............................
Trend of Land in Farms...............
Trend in Ownership...................
Size of Holding....................
Multiple Ownership.................
Method of Acquisition..............
Absentee Ownership...................
Negro Ownership......................
Plantation Organization and Management.
Size of Operation....................
Landlord Managerial Functions........
Non-agricultural Enterprises.........
Social Contributions.................
The One-crop System....................
Land Use in Plantations..............
Crop Acreage per Family..............
Trends in Cotton Culture.............
Fertilizer Consumption.............
Soil Erosion.........................
Production for Rome Use..............
Diversification of Crops.............
15
15
17
17
19
20
21
23
25
25
26
31
31
35
35
36
38
41
43
46
47
Credit • . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . • . .
49
Landlords' Long Term Indebtedness....
Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Foreclosures.......................
Landlords' Short Tem Credit.........
Rates of Interest..................
Governmental Lending Agencies......
Tenants' Short Tem Credit...........
50
52
53
53
55
59
Tenant Debts. • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • . • . •
60
Tenant Interest Rates..............
61
i
1
1
3
5
9
50
ii
CONTENTS
Page
Chapter VI.
Chapter VII.
Chapter VI I I.
Chapter IX.
Chapter X.
Income . ............................... .
Plantation Income ••••••.•••••••••••••
Gross Income ...•.....•••......•....
65
66
66
Net Income.........................
Income per Capita.. • . • • . • • • . • • • • • . •
Factors Related to Plan tat ion Income
Operator's Income....................
Gross Cash Income..................
Net Income.........................
Net Cash Income. • • • • • • • • . • • • . . . • • • •
Tenants' and Laborers' Income........
Net Income.........................
Net Cash Income....................
Mutual Dependence of Tenant and Land-
68
70
73
75
75
77
80
82
83
85
lord . ........................... .
87
91
Tenant's Standard of Living •.•••••.•.••
Housing and Fuel ••.••••..••••••..••••
Value of Housing •.••..•••.••••.••••
Types of l>wellings ••••••.•..••••.••
Size of Dwellings ••••.•••••.•..••••
Equipment of Dwellings ••.•.•.•.••••
Clothing.............................
92
92
95
97
98
101
Food.................................
101
Communication Facilities.............
Heal th...............................
Mobility...............................
Movement from Farm to Farm...........
Change in Residence by Status........
Distance of Moves....................
Change of Status.....................
Number of years in 1934 Tenure Status
Tenure and Occupational Mobility...
Rural-Urban Mobility.................
Hobi 1 i ty by Color....................
Education..............................
Illiteracy...........................
Enrollment, Attendance, and Grades
Completed........................
Length of Tenn.......................
Teachers' Training and Salaries......
Financial Support....................
Public Attitude Toward Education.....
Relief and Rehabilitation..............
Extent and Trend of Relief...........
Factors Influencing Relief Trends. . • •
104
105
107
107
110
115
115
115
119
121
123
125
126
Digitized by
128
132
134
139
140
145
145
148
Google
CONTENTS
iii
Page
Chapter X.
IContinued)
Chapter XI.
Nature and Extent of the Displaced
Tenant Problem ••••••••••••••••
Displacement of Tenants and Relief
Relief to Plantation Families .••••
Costs of Relief and Size of Relief
Benefits......................
The Rural Rehabilitation Program..
Constructive Measures....................
Basic Realities........................
The People...........................
Inter-regional and International
Relationships......................
Large vs. Small Scale Operations.....
Social Inertia.......................
Specific Programs......................
State Legislation....................
Submarginal Land Retirement Programs.
Soil Conservation....................
Diversification of Crops.............
Production Control...................
Credit Refora........................
Direct Relief ••••••••••••••••••••••.•
Work Relief •.... . .•.•.........••••...
Rural Rehabilitation •••••••••••••••••
Promotion of Landownership •••••••••••
Supplementary Tables •••••••••••••••••••••
Method and Scope of the Study ••••••••••••
Plantations EnWllerated, by Counties ••••••
Schedules and Instructions •••••••••••••••
Appendix A.
Appendix B.
Appeiadix C.
Appeadix D.
lad.ex.. . . . • . • • . . • • • . . . • . • . . • • • • . . . . . • . . • • • • . . . . • . • . • . .
Digitized by
153
159
161 .
165
169
179
179
179
182
182
184
184
185
185
186
187
187
188
188
188
189
189
195
243
249
253
273
Google
TEXT TABLES
Page
Table
Tahle
Table
1.
2.
3.
Table
4.
Table
5.
Table
Table
6.
Table
8.
Table
9.
7.
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
P1 an tat ions Enumerated, by Areas..........
Systems of Tenure.........................
Males Engaged in Agriculture in Seven Southeastern Cot ton States, by OJlor and by
Tenure Status, 1860, 1910, 1930.........
Land Proprietorships, by Size, in 20 Georgia
Plantation Counties, 1873, 1902, 1922, and
1934....................................
Acreage in Proprietorships of Specified Size
in 20 Georgia Plantation Counties, 18731934....................................
Method of Plantation Ac~uisition ••••••••••
Operators with Other Occupations, by Areas,
1934....................................
Cot ton Product ion Under the Weevil 1921-1928
as Percent of Cotton Production Before the
Weevil 1905-1914........................
Fifty-nine Counties of the Cot ton-growing
Lower Piedmont (Georgia I Grouped by Importance of Standing Rent, 1920, and by Decrease in Area in Crops Between 1919 and
1924....................................
Size of Proprietorships, by Color of Owner,
in 24 Georgia Counties, 1934 .•..........
Acres in Crops on Plantations, by Areas,
1934 .....•.•...•.•......•.•.........•...
Resident Families on Plantations, by Areas,
22
1934....................................
28
Use of Land in 646 Plan tat ions and of Total
Land in Farms in 7 Southeastern Cotton
States, 1934 ..•.........••......•......•
Acres Operated on Plantations, 1934 .•.•••.
Average Acreage in Cotton, by Groups of
States, 1906-1910 and 1926-1930 ...•.•...
Percent of Needs Produced in the State of
Certain Alabama Farm Products, 1928 .....
Livestock on Farms in Seven Southeastern
Cot ton States, 1930 and 1935 ........... .
5
10
11
18
18
3J
23
23
24
26
35
36
38
47
47
iv
Digitized by
Google
CONTENTS
V
TEXT TABLES CONTINUED
Page
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table
m.
Table 21.
Table 22.
Table 23.
Table 24.
Plantation Hortgages,by Source of Loan and
by Rate of Interest, 1934...............
Landlord Current Borrowing, by Number· of
Te nan ts, 1934 . ................. ,. . . . . . . . .
Landlord Borrowing for Production Credit,
by Source of Loan, 1934.................
Subsistence Advance Practice of Plan tat ions,
by Areas, 1934..........................
Total Debt of Plantation Families, by Tenure,
1930-1934...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plantations Making Subsistence Advances:
Amount, Duration, and Annual Rate of Interest, by Areas, 1934.....................
Gross Income of 645 Plantations, by Source,
1934-. . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 25.
Table 26.
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Plantation Gross and Net Income, by Areas,
1934. . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gross Income for the One-fourth of the Plantations in Each Area with the Highest and
Lowest Gross Income per Plantation, 1934.
Operator's Gross Cash Income, by Areas, 1934.
Operator's Net Income, by Areas, 1934 •••••
Operator Labor Income, 1934 •••••••••••••••
Operator's Net Cash Income, by Areas, 1934.
Operator's Net Cash Gain or Loss, 1934 •••.
Size and Cropping Characteristics of Plantations, by Operator's Net Cash Income per
kre, 1934..............................
Table 33.
Table 34.
Table 34A.
Table 35.
Table 36.
Table 37.
Table 38.
Table 39.
Cropper and Other Share Tenant Net Income
per Family, and Percent of Crop Acres in
Cotton, 1934.. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cropper and Other Share Tenant Net Cash Income, by Areas, 19:54 .•..•..•.•.•...••...
Net Income of Plantation Families, by Type, 1934
Cotton Yield per Acre, by Tenure Status of
Families, by Areas, 1934 ............... .
Average Income of Plantations, by Type of
Operation, 1934 ........................ .
Average Value of Fann Dwellings in Seven
Southeastern Cotton States, by Color and
Tenure of Operator, 1930 ••••••••••••••••
Annual Commissary Purchases o! 25 Tenants
in Arkansas, by Commodities, 1933•.•••••
N11111ber of Q)ws, Pigs, and Poultry Reported
by Plantation Families, by Tenure, 1934.
Digitzed by
~
54
55
59
6()
63
66
69
70
76
77
79
80
00
81
84
85
87
89
89
94
102
103
Google
vi
CONTENTS
TEXT TAB LES CONT I ~UEO
Page
Table 40.
Table 41.
Table 42
Table 43.
Table 44.
Table 45.
Table 46.
Table 47.
Table 48.
Table 49.
Table 50.
Table 51.
Table 52.
Table 53.
Table 54.
Tenancy, Telephones, Passenger Cars, and
Magazines, by Areas, 1930 ....••••...•.•.
Length of Fam Residence of Plantation Families, by Color, by 1934 Tenure Statu5, by
Age, and by Length of Farming Experience
Changes in Residence of 1,830 South Carolina
Farmers, by Number of Moves Made, by 1933
Ten11re, and by Color ••..•••••••...•.....
Changes in Residence of 1,830 South Carolina
~'armers, by Occupation, hy 1933 Tenure,
and hy Color .••.•....•.••.••..•.••......
Number of Farms Lived on, Number of Years
Farmed, and Number of Counties Lived in
by ~forth Carolina Farm Families on Relief
in 1934, by Tenure Status ..•..•••.•...••
Distance of Moves Made by 1,830 South Carolina farmers, hy Color and by 1933 Tenure
Number of Continuous Years Spent in 1934
Tenure Status by Plantation Families, by
1934 Tenure Status, and by Color ....•••.
Number of Years Famed in Each Tenure Status
by Heads of Plantation Families, hy 1934
Tenure Status, and by Color •.•••••••....
Changes in Status of 1,830 South Carolina
Farmers, by 1933 Tenure, and by Color ••.
Moves to Town by Plantation Families, by
1934 Tenure Statns, and by Color .•.•....
Educ at ion of Children of Rural Relief and
Non-relief Households in the Old South
Cotton Area, by Color, October 1933 .••••
Median Grade in School Completed by Reads
and Members 10 - 64 Years of Age of Open
Country Relief Households in Nine Representative Agricultural Areas and in the
Eastern Cot ton Area, by Age Groups, October 1935.. • • • . • . . . . • . • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Expenditures for Teachers.' Salaries in Pub1 i c School CJ per Child 6 - 14 Years of Age
Per Capita Expenditure for Teachers' Salaries
in Counties, by Percent of Negroes in the
Total Population ....••••..••.••.••.••••.
Cotton and Tobacco Counties in Seven Southeastern Cotton States, by Percent of Families on Relief and Rehabilitation and by
Per Capita Crop Ilenefit Payments........
Digitized by
104
110
112
113
113
114
116
117
118
121
130
131
137
139
150
Google
vii
CONTENTS
TEXT TABLES CONTINUED
Page
Table 55.
Table 56.
Table 57.
Table 58.
Table 59.
Table 60.
Table 61.
Percent Change in Number of Plantation Families 1930-1935, by Color and by Tenure
Status, by Areas........................
Changes in Crop Acreage, 1930-1935, on 513
Plantations, by Areas...................
Plantations With Tillable Acres Idle and
With Vacant Houses, by Areas, 1934......
Current and Usual Occupation of Rural Relief Households in the Eastern Cotton
Area, June 1935.........................
Relief Status of 5,147 Plantation Families,
by Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relief St.atus of 5,171 Plantation Families,
by 1934 Tenure Status...................
· Average Age of Heads of Relief and Non-relief
Plantation Families, by Tenure Status,
1934....................................
Table 62.
Table 63.
Table 64.
Table 65.
Table 66.
Table 67.
Size of Plantation Families and Employability of Members, by Relief Status, and by
1934 Tenure Status......................
Monthly Relief Benefit per Family !Outside
of Principal Cities) in United States and
Seven Sou the as tern Cot ton States, September 1933, 1934, and 1935................
Average Amount of Relief Received by Rural
Households During June 1935 by Usual Occupation of the Head, in the Eastern Cotton
Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Average Annual and Monthly Relief Grants of
290 Plantation Families, and· Number of
Months on Relief, by Tenure Status, 1934.
Average Amount of Goods Issued Since Date of
Enrollment to Cases Receiving Rural Rehabilitation Advances in June 1935 in the
Eastern O,t ton Area, by Type of Goods, and
158
159
160
162
162
164
164
167
167
169
by Color.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
173
Usual and Current Occupation of Heads of
Rural Cases Receiving Relief and Under Care
of Rural Rehabilitation Program, in the
Eastern Cotton Area, June 1935..........
173
Dig ii Zed by
..___
157
Goog [e
FIGURES
Page
Figure
figure
2.
Figure
3.
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
4.
1.
5.
6.
7.
J,'igure
8.
Figure
9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
Figure 17.
Figure 18.
Figure 19.
The Average Cotton Plantation 119341.....
Slaves per Owner in Cotton Counties of the
Southeast, 1860........................
Percent Tenancy in Cotton 0:>unties of the
Southeast, 1930........................
The O:>tton Belt..........................
The Cot ton Southeast.....................
Plantations Enumerated...................
Percent Which Net Gain or Loss by Interstate Migration Forms of Number Born in
the State, 1930........................
Males Engaged in Agriculture in Seven Southeastern 0:>tton States, 1860-1930.......
Total and Improved Acreage in Farms in
Seven Southeastern Cotton States, 18601935.. . . • • • . • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • . • • • .
Organization of Enterprises on the Large
and Closely Supervised Plantation......
Ratio of Prices Received for O:>tton and
Cottonseed and for All Agricultural O:>mmodi ties to Prices Paid for 0:>mmodities
Bought, 1924-1935 .••.•.••••.••.• ,......
Average Net Demand and Time Deposits in
Banks Located in Towns of Less than 15,000
Population, 1929-1935 .• , .••••••.••••. ,.
Percent of Fertilizer O:>nsumption in the
United States, 1910-1930...............
General Distribution of Erosion, 1936....
Amount of Emergency Crop and Feed Loans,
by 0:>unties, 1932 and 1933.............
Total Gross Income of 645 Cot ton Plan tat ions, 1934............................
Average Gross and Net Plantation Income,
by Areas, 1934.........................
Average Net Plantation Income and Landlord
Net Income, by Areas, 1934. • • . • • • • • • . • •
Average Landlord Net Income and Labor Income, by Areas, 1934...................
xxxii
2
2
4
4
6
8
13
16
27
42
42
45
45
58
67
71
71
71
viii
Digitized by
Google
ix
CONTENTS
FIGURES CONTINUED
Page
Figure 20.
Figure 21.
Figure 22.
Figure 23.
Figure 24.
Figure 25.
Figure 26.
Figure 27.
Figure 28.
Figure 29.
Figure 30.
Figure 31.
Figure 32.
Median Operator Labor Income per Crop Acre,
by Average Tenant Net Income per Family,
1934.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Median Value of Farm Dwellings, by Tenure,
1930...................................
Average Value of Farm Dwellings in Seven
Soutbea.c;tern Cotton States, and the
United States, 1930....................
Screens and Sanitary Facilities for Farm
Houses in Seven Southeastern Cotton
States, 1934 .......•• :.................
Percent of Farm Dwellings in Seven Southeastern Cotton States Without Sanitary
Facilities, 1934.......................
Rural Death Rate From Specific Diseac;es in
Seven Southe;istern Cotton States, and
Rest of United States, 1930............
Occupational History of 1,830 South Caro).ina Farmers, by 1933 Tenure and by
Color. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . • . . • .
Relative Standing of the States in Education, 1930 ••.•.•....•.••••.......•.....
Illiteracy in the Population 10 Years Old
and Over, 1930.. • • • • • • . . • • • • . . . . . • . • • • •
Percent of Population Under 20 Years of
Age, 1930 •.•.•....•••.•.•.•.•.•••..••••
Average Length of School Tenn in Days,
1927-1928. • • . . . . • • • • • . • • . . . • • • • • • • • • • • •
Average Annual Salaries Paid Public School
Teachers, 1928.........................
Percent of All Income Expended for Schools,
1928...................................
Figure 33.
Relief Rates in the Seven Southea!'ltern Cotton States, by Residence, Color, and Location in Cotton or Non-cotton Counties,
October 1933. • • • • • • • • • • • . . • . • . • . . . . • • • .
Trend of Combined Relief and Rebabili tat ion
in Rural Counties by Areas, October 1933
Through June 1935 .•••.••..•.•...•••••..
Number of Relief and Rehabilitation Cases
in Cotton Counties, in Seven Southeastern
Cotton States, by 6-month Intervals, May
1933 Tbroug~ Nove111ber 1935.............
Dig ii Zed by
88
93
96
98
99
106
la::>
127
127
129
133
135
141
147
147
149
Goog [e
CONTENTS
X
FIGURES CONTINUED
Page
Figure 36.
Figure 37.
Figure 38.
Median Relief-Rehabilitation Rates, May
1935, in Cotton and Tobacco Counties of
Seven Southeastern Cot ton States, by per
Capita Value of Cotton Benefit Payments,
September 1933 Through March 1936 .•.•••
Incidence of Relief among 5,033 Plantation
Families,by Tenure Status, January 1934
Through June 1935 ..................... .
Per Capita Amount of Obligations Incurred
for Emergency Relief, January 1933Through
September 1935 ••••••.•••••••••••••••.••
149
163
166
SUPPLE~ENTARY TABLES
( Appendix A)
Table
1.
Table
2.
Table
3.
Table
4,
Table
5.
Table
6.
Table
7.
Table
8.
Table
9.
Table 10.
Table 11.
Tenants on All Farms and on Plantations in
the Selected Plantation Area of Seven
Southeastern Cot ton States, 1910 ........
Children Under 5 Years of Age, per 1,000
Native-born Women 15-44 Years of Age in
the Rural Farm Population, by Color, in
United States and Seven Southeastern Cotton States, 193.J and 1930 .............. .
Type of Tenants on Plantations, hy Areas,
1934....................................
Color of Tenants on Plantations, by Areas,
1934....................................
Land Proprietorships, by Size, in Selected
Counties in North Carolina, Georgia, and
Mississippi, 1934 •.••.••••••••.••.•.••••
Land Proprietorships, by Size and by Areas,
1911, 1922, and 1934 ................... .
Operators Owning Other Fanns and Number of
Other Fanns Owned, by Areas, 1934 •••••••
Land in Fanns Held by Corporations in Selected Counties in North Carolina, Georgia,
and Mississippi, 1934 .•.•.•.••..•••.••••
Acres in Plantations, by Date of Acquisition,
by Areas, 1934 .•..••..••...••..••.•..•••
Resident, Semi-absentee, and Absentee Operators, by Areas, 1934 .••.....•.••.•••••.
Value of Land, Buildings, Animals, and Machinery, by Areas, 1934 .••••.•••••••••••••
Digitized by
195
195
195
196
196
197
197
198
199
Google
CONTENTS
xi
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES CONTINUED
Paf1'e
Table 12.
Crop Expenrti tu res on Plantations, by Areas,
Table 13.
Plantations With and Without Commissaries,
by Areas,
Social Contributions of Plantations, by
Areas, 1934. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • •
Social Contributions of Plantations, by
Areas, 1 ~4 ••.••••...••••••••••.••••••• ·•
Use of Land in Plantatiol'ls, by Areas, 1934.
Crop Acres in Plantations, by Tenure Status
of Resident Families, by Areas, 1934 ..•.
Ratio of Prices Received for Cotton and Cottonseed and for All Al!ricul tural Commortities Bouffht, 1924-1935 ................. .
Average Net Deniand and Time Deposits in
Banks Located in Towns of Less Than 15,000
Population in United States and Sev,en
Southeastern Cotton States, 1929-1935 ...
Plantation Livestock, by Areas, 1934 ••.•.•
Operators' Long Term Debts, by Areas, 1934.
Fam Mortgage Debt, by Tenure of Operators,
in United States and Sevep Southeastern
Cot ton States, 1910, 1920, 1925, and 1928.
Ratio of Mortgage Debt to Value of All Fams
in United States and Seven So•1theastern
Cotton States, January 1, 1910, 1920,
1925, 3Ild 1928 •••••.•••••••.•...•.••..••
Frequency of Farm Mortgage Debt in United
States and Seven Southeastern Cotton
States, by Tenure of Operator, January 1,
1925, and 1929 ••...•••••....••.......•.•
Farm Land Held by Corporations in 46 North
Carolina, Georgia, and Mississippi Counties,
Amount and Annual Rate of Interest of Govern. ment, Merchant, Fertilizer, and Bank Loans,
Table 14A.
Table 14B.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.
Table 21.
Table 22.
Table 23.
Table 24.
Table 25.
Table 2e.
Table 27.
1934....................................
1934..........................
202
203
2Q4.
205
206
207
208
208
209
210
210
211
211
193-4..............................
211
by Areas, 1934..........................
212
Loans Closed Through Federal Intermediate
Credit Banks From Organization of Production Credit Associations Through December
31, 1934 ••.••.•••••.•••••••••••...•••...
Number and Amount of F.mergency Crop Production Loans in Seven Southeastern Cotton
States, 1921-1930, 1931, 1~32, 1933, and
1934... . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
213
213
DigtizedbyGoogle
xii
CONH:NTS
SUPPLE~ENTARY TABLES CONTINUED
Page
Table 28.
Table 29.
Table 30.
Table 31.
Table 32.
Table 33.
Table 34.
Tiible 35.
Table 36.
Table 37.
Table 38.
Table 39.
Tiible 40.
Table 41.
Table 42.
Table 43.
Table 44.
Table 45.
Seed Lo:i.ns in Seven Southeastern Cotton
States, 1930-1934.......................
Cash Collections Made on Emergency Crop Production and Feed Loans in Seven Southeastern Cotton States, 1931-1934............
Financial Results of Plant/\tion Families, by
Tenure Sutus, 1930-1933........ .... .. ..
Amount and Cost of Credit Used by 588 Croppers
on 112 Farms in Coastal Plain Region !North
C/\rolinal, 1928.........................
Gross Income of 645 Plant/\tions, 1934.....
Net Income for the One-fourth of the Plantations in Eiich Area with the Highest itnd
the Lowest Net Income per Planution, 1934.
Si:,;e of Plantations in Rehtion to Phnution
Net Income, 1934........................
Speciali zc1.t ion in Cot ton Product ion in Relation to Plantation Net Income, by Areas,
1934....................................
Operator Net Income in Relation to Ciipital
Invested, by Areas, 1934................
OperHor Labor Income per Crop Acre and per
Acre Value of Land, 1934................
Net Income by Tenure Status, by Areas, 1934.
Cropper and Other Share Tenant Net Income,
by ValueperAcre of All Plantation Land,
1934....................................
Net Income of Plantation Families, by Income
from Home Use Production, 1934..........
Cropper and Other Share Tenant Net Income per
Family, by Operator Labor Income per Crop
Ac re , 1 934 •.•••••••••.•.••••• ; • • • • • • • • • •
Value of Farm Dwellings in Seven Southeastern
Cotton States as Compared to Geographic
Divisions, 1930.........................
Farm Houses Surveyed in Seven Southeastern
Cotton States, 1934.....................
Percent Distribution of Farm Houses Surveyed
in Seven Southeastern Cotton States, by
Type of House, and by Color and Tenure of
Occupants, 1934.........................
Number of Rooms per Fam House Surveyed in
Seven Southeastern Cotton States, by Color
and Tenure of Occupants, 1934,..........
Digitized by
214
214
215
215
216
216
217
217
218
219
220
221
221
222
223
223
224
225
Google
xiii
CONTENTS
SUPPLEMBNTARY TABLES CONTINUED
Page
Table 46.
Table 47.
Table 48.
Table 49.
Occupants per Room in Farm Houses in Seven
Southeastern Cotton States, by Color and
Tenure of Occupants, 1934 ••••••••••••••••
Bedroo:ns and Other Rooms peri'arm House Surveyed in Seven Southeastern Cotton States,
by Color and Tenure of Occupants, 1934 •••
Percent of Farm Houses Surveyed with Screens
in Seven Southeastern Cotton States, by
Color and Tenure of Occupants, 1934 ••••••
Percent Distribution of Farm Houses Surveyed
in Seven Southeastern Cotton States, by
Source of Water, by Color and Tenure of
()ccupants,
Table 50.
Table 51.
Table 52.
Table 53.
Table 54.
Table 55.
Table 56.
1934..........................
Percent Distribnt ion of Farm Houses Surveyed
in Seven Southeastern Cotton States, by
Type of Sanitary Facilities, by Color and
Tenure of Occupants, 1934 .....•...•.•....
Percent Distribution of Far111 Houses Surveyed
in Seven Southeastern Cotton States, by
Type of Cooking Facilities, by Color and
Tenure of Occupants, 1934 ••••••••••••••••
Rural Deaths fro111 Typhoid and Paratyphoid,
Pellagra, and Malaria in Seven Southeastern
Cotton States and in Other States in the Registration Area of the United States,1930 ••
Occupation al History of 1,830 South Carolina
Farmers, by 1933 Tenure and hy Color •••••
Age of Negroes in Michigan, by Sex, 1930 •••
11 literacy in the Population 10 Years of Age
and Over, by Color, and 21 Years and Over,
by Sex , 1 930. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Residence, Color, and Location in Cotton or
Non-cotton Counties of Relief Cases in
Seven Southeastern Cotton States, October
1933.....................................
225
225
226
~7
228
229
230
2:51
232
233
234
Table 57.
Combined Rural Relief and Rehabilitation
Intensity Rates, October 1933 Tbrouiib June
1935, for Rural Counties, by Agricultural
Table 58.
Areas • ••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••
234
Relief and Rehabilitation Cases in Cotton
Counties in Seven Southeastern Cotton
St ates, by 6-Mont h Intervals, May 1933
through November 1935, by States.........
235
Digitized by
Google
xiv
CONTENTS
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES CONTINUED
Page
Table 59.
Table 60.
Table 61.
Table 62.
Table 63.
Table 64.
Table 65.
Tenure and Color of Farm Operators in Seven
Southea.stern Cotton States, 1930 and 1935.
Change in Number of Tenants, by Tenure and
by Cotton and Tobacco Counties and Noncotton and Non-tobacco Counties in Seven
Southeastern Cotton States, 1930-1935...
Percent Change in the Number of Tenants in
Seven Southeastern Cotton States, by Cotton and Tobacco Counties and Non-cot ton
and Non-tobacco Counties, 1930-1935 •••••
Incidence of Relief Among Plantation Families, 1934 to July l, 1935, by Months and
by Tenure Status........................
Obligations Incurred for &nergency Relief,
by Source of Funds, January 1933 Through
September 1935, in United States and Seven
Southeastern Cotton States..............
Relief Grants to Rural Relief Households,
by Areas, June 1935.....................
Ca3es Receiving Rural Rehabilitation Advances During June 1935, Cases Ever Under
Care, and Amount of Goods Issued Under
the Entire Rural Rehabilitation Progra111,
in United States ancl Seven Southeastern
Cotton States...........................
237
238
239
240
240
ILLUSTRATIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
Commissary and Han ager' s Home on Large Plantation in Mississippi .•••••••••••..•• , ••.••••••
Soil Erosion Typical of Rolling Land Under Clean
Cultivation ................................. .
One of the Worst of the Tenant Houses ••••••••••
A Poorer Type of Rural School ••••••••••••••••••
Digitized by
30
43
95
140
Google
LANDLORD AND TENANT
ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
Dig tized by
Google
r
Digitized by
Google
INTRODUCTION
Presentation of the human elements associated with the land
te11Ure systea b the Ba.stern Cotton Belt is the primary object
of the preseat study. The technical phases of southern agricultare &ad of .tana econo■ics are subordinated in order to focus
Oe discussion on the landlord and the tenant. to describe their
relationships, and to analyze the effects of the depression and
of tile begiantngs at recovery on these relationships. To accoaplish this the plantation has been ■ade the unit of the study,
for [!Ile plantation is both an organization for production &Dd
tlle aechanis■ for the distribution of the product. It constitates a co•uni tJ within which the tenants and laborers have
defhite relationships, both with the landlord and a110ng thea1el.ves_.:J Table 2 gives a description of these relationships.
Tbe detailed anal.7sis which follows does not present a coetlete picture of landlord-tenant relations in the Southeast,
■nee the field study of 646 plantations on which it is based was
li■ited to ■ediU11-sized and large cotton planting operations 1
ii tile Eastern Cotton Belt. 2 ~tractwith five or more resident
f•ilies. iaclading tbe landlord, was delined as a plantati~ 8
tracts with fewer faailies were not included in this survey.
Tbe c:biefdifference between a sample embracing purely plantatioa tenants aad one which al.so includes the tenants on smaller
operatio■• is that of efficiency in cotton productio11.
This
la aeu11red by the fact that IJ:!!e average yield of cotton in
ltM oa all faras in the 7 States was 215 pounds per acre and
oa e■ aerated plaatations it was 257 pounds per ~ 4 .The
•tiller production does not necessarily mean a proportionately
hither hcoae tor plantation tenants, due to the additional expeadi tare for fertilizer incurred in more intensive cultivation.
1rw •..,1111& •'1104, ■H APi>en41:I B, "•thod 1114 Scope or th• Stud7.
•c•aU•• la lllalcll 40 percent or aore ot the sroa rara lncoae 10 193> . .
tna coUOD tara■ • Plutat1on■ •re eauerated 1D llorth Carouna, Oeorsla,
AlalleM. Nl•lNlPPI, Ark...... U4 Lou111ua. ID addltlOD PlHtatlOD
.., . tff a.ao carouaa were aecured troa ouaer atadua •
._,. ••UalUoa wu adUted troa t)ae detlDltlCID 1lN4 lD tu u. s. ce ....
a,Hlal Plaat&tl• 11111a117 . , ttlO. (IH ,. ,. c•••• 1110. fol. ,. c11ap&er 111, •1aatat1ou la &lie SOlltll, 9 ) ft• pruent atlldJ lnclllded tr&et■
•SUI tl•• Nal•••t ru111ea of aa, i,pe, '·•·• laborer or teD.aDt, Wbereu
CU •to •A47 lacladed oalJ t1ao·ao tracta with Un or aore teaut tu111u.
'Dua fer cottoD 11•14 oa all raru la Ule ■nen StatH c&1calated troa
lteUeUc.1,
u. a. Departaent or A&rlC111ture, TabU H.
lal& tor cotton 11e1d o■ plutatlone calculated tor eoe plaatatloaa oper••• Ir
IIUllla, oropper■, or oUler ahare teauta.
..,rte.,,_..,
11,,.
•1&•
xvii
Digitized by
Google
xviii
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
LThe method of selection used in this study excluded the majority of the farms in the South, for, contrary to popular belief, large plantations are not now and never have been the
mainstay of southern agricultur~~ In the antebellum South 70
percent of the farmers were non-slaveholders and 50 percent of
the slaveholders owned less than five slaves. \]'oday thousands
of comparatively small tracts, operated by from one to four
families, include the bulk of the acreage and the majority of
the farm operators in the Cotton South~
Lln the Census plantation inquiry of 1910, only 270 counties
in the 7 cotton States were considered pla.'ltation counties.
There were 33,908 plantations in these counties. All farms in
these counties contained 653,607 tenants, and the plantations
contained 355,186 tenants or 54.3 percent of all tenants in the
counties (Appendix Table 11. The other 45.7 percent were scattered on farms with from one to four tenants. There were in
addition 240,000 ten an ts scattered on small farms in these States,
outside the 270 plantation counties. The probable number of
plantations in these States in 1935 had dropped to about 30,000J
LThe smaller farming uni ts are obviously incapable of the economies and efficiency of large-scale organizations described
in this study and are generally located on poorer cotton land...J
Also, some of the facts regarding the landlord-tenant relationship brought out in this report might not be applicable to the
smaller farms since the relationship is probably less subject
to abuse where a small number of tenants permits more frequent,
direct, and personal contacts.
The background material in the various chapters of the report includes characteristics of smaller as well as larger farms,
however, and in some respects the findings of the field study
are applicable to small uni ts. For example, in the character
of supervision and method of dividing the crop, the landlordtenant relationships are generally similar whether the landlord
has l tenant or 50.
Furthermore,~lantation customs and ideology set the pattern
for relationships in smaller farm units. This is true because
of the dominance of the plantation in southern rural life. Large
planters persistently emerge as the political and economic leaders of the cotton areas. Even if there are only four or five
large plantations in a county, the ownership of these considerable properties and the prestige of success on a large scale
make it easy for the planters to assume prominence in community
control if their personalities fit them for leadership. Add to
this a sentimental attachmenttolandasa symbol of aristocracy
and the consequent family ties to the land, and the plantation
stands out as the basis for a hereditary oligarchy in southern
community lif~
Digitized by
Google
SUMMARY
Large-scale cash-crop farming continues today in the same
areas of the Southeast that had large slave-holdings and large
cotton plantations in 1860. Today, however, it is the Negro
or white tenant fanner, rather than the Negro slave, who operates
aost of the plantation land,L!he increase in tenancy, and especially in wbi te tenancy, has been the most striking trend in
southern fam life in the last 25 years. Since 1910 there has
been a aarked decrease in owner operators, and a great increase
in tenant operators, both in proportion to all farm operators
and in actual numbers. The major part of this shift occurred
before 193:(Ll
A plantation is defined for purposes of this study as a
tract farmed by one owner or manager with five or more resident
fuilies. These may include the landlord, and laborers, share
tenants, or renters. Except in the case of renters the landlord exercises close supervision over operators, and except in
the case of wage laborers each family cultivates a separate
piece of land. Owners of plantations of the size surveyed do
not constitute the majority of southern landholders. Concentrated in soae counties, however, they control the majority of
the acreage. In those parts of the South where fairly large
operative units prevail, the plantation owners, through their
control over large acreages of the best land and of large numbers of tenant and laborer families, st ill dominate the economic,
political, and cultural life. Landlord-tenant relationship on
the smaller units in such areas are patterned after those on
the larger holdings.
Plantation ~reas
t!he cotton plantation areas of today, as in 1860, are regions
where the land is adaptable to large-scale cotton production.
It is in these areas that a large proportion of Negroes is found
in the population. They include the Atlantic Coast Plain cottontobacco areas, wi t .b mediua-sized plantations; the Old Black Belt
cotton area,vithsome remaining large plantations,manyof them
operated by absentee owners; the Upper Piedmont; the Muscle
Shoals Basin; the Interior Plain of Arkansas and Louisiana, with
s111all plantations scattered widely among the smaller farms; and
the Mississippi Bluffs and Delta areas, including the bottom
xix
Dig t1ze by
Google
xx
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
land of the tributaries of the Mississippi. In the last named
areas the plantation organization has been retained most persistently, and here also the land is particularly well adapted
to large-scale cotton production. In these areas, the proportion of Negroes in the population is particularly large.I
Lin true plantation areas there is a high degree of concentration of land ownership, with a consequent high proportion of
tenants among the farm operators. Such areas are further characterized by per capita incomes higher than those in other southern agricultural counties but lower than those in other farming
sections of the Nation; small proportions of urban and village
dwellers; scarcity of non-agricultural industries; large families; poor school facilities, especially for Negroes; and a
highly mobile population, with families freg1Jently on the move
in search of better conditions. These areas are utterly subject
to King C'.otton, booming when the King is prosperous and slumping when the King is sick. Asirle from feed for livestock and
a limited amount of produce for home consumption, practically
no other crop is grow
Labor Conditions and Tenure Classes
0_s land resources are now used, plantation labor conditions
and population trends are largely determined by the pressure of
population on these resources.
Concentration on one cropcotton-demands a large labor supply for only part of the year.
Landlords prefer large families to meet the labor demanris of
the peak seasons, thus encouraging a high birth rate. This
high rate of population increase in turn perpetuates the plantation systaj Natural increase in southern rural areas, espedally of the white population, has been more rapid than in other
sections. ~e Negro birth rate is also high, but the high Negro
death rate, particularly among infants, results in a lower natural rate of increase for Negroes than for whites. This surplus
labor supply has reduced the bargaining power of the individual
plantation tenant, making it increasingly difficult for him to
free himself from the plantation system and become an inrlependent farmer_.\
\]_efore the depression, much of the excess labor (approximately a quarter of a million ~ersons each year) migrated from the
n1ral South to areas where the industrial demand was expanding,
so that there was little actual increase in the southeastern
population living on farms between 1885 and 1930. Since that
date, however, the closing of the industrial labor market has
caused a piling up of population in plantation areas, at the
same time that the Agricultural A<ljustment Administration has
restricted the demand for labor in cotton producti~ Serious
problems of relief and rehabilitation have resulted.
Digitized by
Google
xxi
SUMMARY
Wage labor replaced slave labor on plantations immediately
after the Civil War, but share-cropping was soon introduced as
a method of labor operations. 1Most of the plantations are now
operated largely by share-crop~rs-virtually laborers who receive half of the crop in return for working the land. Wage
labor continues on a few plan tat ions. Others are operated by
various types of tenants, some of whom provide work stock and
tools and t bus receive a larger share of the crop than the sharecropper and some of whom rent the land outright, paying rent in
cash or produce. Often all classes of tenants are found on the
same plantation. Of the plantations covered in this study, 71
percent were operated by families of mixed tenure, while 16 percent were operated by croppers, 4 percent by wage hands, 3 percent by other share tenants, and 6 percent by rente~
Prior to 1910, when the acreage of improved land was expanding, wage laborers and tenants were sometimes able to improve
their status through saving enough to buy work animals and implements, to rent land outright, or even to buy small tracts of
land. (!_n 1860, all Negro agricultural workers in the South were
laborers. In 1930, only 29 percent were laborers, 58 percent
were tenants, and 13 percent were owners. The 58 percent that
were tenants included many share-croppers, whose status was
essentially that of labor~
LA.s population pressure increased, whites began to compete
with Negroes for places on the land as tenants and laborers.
While the vast majority of white agricultural workers were owners in 1860, by 1930 over three-quarters of a million white families in the Southeast had joined the tenant or laborer clas~
The proportion of white ownership declined steadily with the increase in white tenancy ·LWhites now make up the majority of tenants in the Old South, as well as in other parts of the country,
although nearly all of the plantations in this survey still had
Negro tenants, 53 percent operating exclusively with Negroes,
5 percent exclusively with whites, and 42 percent with both.
It is evident, there fore, that white tenants are concentrated
on the smaller holdings and Negro tenants on the large.r,J
Ownership
LT he number and proportion of large holdings int he Sooth have
decreased and the number and proportion of small holdings have
increased, reflecting the increasing division of land ownership.
The disintegration of large tracts was steady from the Civil
War to about 1910. At present there is a tendency to hold large
tracts together, especially since so much worn-out land has
been dropped from cultivation.)"
A number of proprietors owr/ more than one tract. Large owners further concentrate operations by renting additional land.
Di~
ogle
xxii
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
Moreover,\about 10 percent of the plantation land in the South
is in the hands of large banks, insu ranee companies, anrl mortgage companies which ac'l.uired it throup,h foreclosures in recent
years. About 25 percent of all inrlivirlual holdings have been
ac'l.uired within the past 5 year,sj
Ukgroes have entered the owner eroup to a limited extent,
there being over 200,000 Negro owner operators in 1910. Like
white owners, however, their number has d~c1 ined since 1910.
The size of Negro lan<i-holdings is much smaller than that of
white holding~
~anr plan tat ion owners are not experienced farmers, having
ac'lu ired their holdings by inheri ta.nee or foreclosure. T1 such
cases, the owner often places the ope rat ion and management in
other hands. In this study 6 percent of the plantatwns sampled
were found to be absentee owned and 9 percent of the landlords
were classified as semi-absentee, since they Illa.de infrc'luent
visits to the plantation. Under absentee ownership land abuse
is particularly prevalent and operation is especially unstable
in times of crisis. Another characteristic of absenteeism is
the extent to which landowners engage, at least partially, in
other occ~pations. In this study, 31 percent oi all operators
devoted more than one-fourth of their time to occupations other
than farmini.-1
Plantation Organization and Management
Indicative of the disappearance of very large plantationg is
the fact that only slightly over a tenth of the plantations
sampled operated 800 or more crop acres, and only about the same
number housed W or more fan1ilies. ~he very large plantations
were concentrated in the Upper Del ta of the Mississippi and its
tributaries, and the adjacent Bluffs section.J In the Upper
Piedmont and Muscle Shoals regions over 90 percent of the plantations had less than 400 crop acres and less than 10 tenant
families. In the Black Belt and Coast Plain sections about
three-fourths of the plantations had less than 10 families.
tJ.Jie plantation system requires an abundance of skill,energy,
and knowledge on the part of the landlord if his operations are
to be successful and his tenants are to make a profit. lie must
be able to plan and assig1 the crop acreage to the. best advantage, handle financia] operations, manage labor, animals, and
implements, and supervise marketing and subsistence advances.
On the very large plantations there is often the additional
management of such su:,plementary enterprises as commissaries,
gins, mills, and shops. Usually the owner or landlord is also
obligated to aid in the social and community affairs of his
tenants. The large plantation owner or manager is assisted in
executing these functions by managers, overseers, and gang
Digitized by
Google
SUMMARY
xx iii
bosses. On small plantations all of these functions are pcrfonned by one man.
One of the landlord 1 s major duties, and one upon which the
success of hi.s operation depends, is the expenditure of the plantation's working capital, in the purchase of seeds and fertilizer, in plantation upkeep, and in the apportionment of subsistence advances to the tenants for food and clothing. This
practice of subsistence advances, to be repaid b:,- the tenants
when the crop is marketed, is one of the chief trouble spots
for the landlord. The supervision of these advances determiLes
the living standard of the share teoan.!J
Cotton Production Trends
The plantation system is bound up with the casl1-crop s:,·stem.
L..Concentration on cotton increased from the Civil \far until the
boll weevil invasion soon after 1910. Since 1910 there has been
a marked shift of the cotton acreage to the .3tates of Texas and
Oklahoma, the combined acreage in these States having increased
100 percent from HHO to 1930. In 1930, half the cot ton acreaJ:!e
of the United State3 was concentrated in those two States. Cotton acreage had increased 40 percent in MississigpL. Arkansas,
and Louisiana, while the eastern plantation States, Alabama,
Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, had 5 percent less
acreage in cotton in 19:30 than in 1910. This decrease was larJ:!ely due to the disorganization caused by the boll weevil as it
passed across the Sout.!!..:J In some areas of the Southeast, financial distress became serious 25 years ago and the trend for
the cotton producer has been downward for a lonJ:! time, interrupted by only short periods of high prices. The depression
since 19:30, therefore, merely added to the effects of previous
disasters. Weevil damage caused drastic acreage reduction for
a few years, and as each State reduced its acreage, Texas and
Oklahoma added to theirs. )When weevil disorganization had
passed and the Eastern Cot tonl3el t began to attain its former
production, States west of the Mississippi continued to expand
their acreage. As a result, the supply of cotton far exceeded
the demand. Over-production reached a peak when the 1931 crop
r,f 1i; million bales was added to a carry-over of 10 million
bales, at the same time that domestic and foreign demand was
shrinking. As a result, the price fell to 6 cents a pound in
1932, causing heavy losses to all producers. Only the semiself-sustaining fanner, or the planter with resources or good
credit,could continue to operat.!,l
Land Use and the One-crop System
Under the present system of cash-crop farming, plantation
land in the South is used more iatensively than land in almost
Dig 112ed y
Goos IC
xxiv
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON TDK COTTON PLANTATION
any other section of the country. t!he average plantation family in this study was allotted 25- crop acres; croppers .had
an average of 20 crop acres; share tenants and renters bad
about 25 crop acres; and wage hands, about 45 crop acres oer
f
aroii.,0
L!_lthough spoken of a.s a one-crop system, the cropping arrangement of the Cot ton South is really a two-crop system:
cotton for cash, and corn for food and feed. Host plantations
have as much acreage in corn a.sin cotton. Four percent of the
total expenditure of the plantations studied, however, was for
feed which could easily have been grown on the plantations. Up
to the inauguration of the cotton reduction program, the planta~ions of the South tended to be less and less self-supporting,
in contrast with the practices of slave plantations which produced a large proportion of their subsistence needs. Depleted
fertility of vast tracts of soil and widespread erosion have resul ted from this exploiting of land resources in the interest
of cotton cropping for cash returns. Consequently, substantial
expenditures for fertilizer are necessary in the cultivation of
cotton in the Southeast, except in the Delta areas~
~nder the crop reduction program of the A. A. A., cotton acreage was reduced, and between 1933 ancl 1935 probably more crop
diversification was undertaken than during any other period of
tile South's history. The present cropping system, however, makes
such a soil co1servation practice difficult to introduce, with
tile result that the South is one of the major erosion areas of
the Nation. Ten percent of the land in the United States classified for retirement from arable farming by the National Resources
Board in 1934 was cotton lan~
In a prolonged cot ton crisis even the most efficient planters
are no longer able to operate unless they have ample resources
or credit. Although exclusive cotton culture results in heavy
losses in bad years, the owners of large tracts still concentrate
on this crop because no other use of large-scale tracts is so
profitable to the landlord in good years. Only the owners and
tenants operating small acreages have an.y advantage in planting
their land to foodstuffs. They can use the produce themselves,
but tile large planters cannot profitably dispose of all the food
that their land is capable of producing.
Credit System
l_!nterest 1s a substantial item in the budget of plantation expenditures of landlords and tenants and is a major obstacle in
the way of financial progressforthose in either class. Nearly
half of the landlords interviewea !or this study had long tem
debts, mostly in the form of mortgages, aYeraging more than 40
percent of the appraised valut"·o! their ·land, buildings, ani■als,
Digitized by
Google
SUMMARY
XXV
and aachinery. These long tet'ffl debts were incurred to meet deficits or purchases of machinery, etc. Host of the landlords had
availed thei1sehes of goYemment facilities !or mortgage l o ~
J.!1"0111 1910 to 1928 the amount of mortgage debt almost quactrupled
in the seven southeastern cotton States, and the increases in
11ortgage debt from 1920 to 1928 were proportionately greater in
the South than in any other section of the country. A large number of 111ortgages have been foreclosed in the past 15 years, and
the process was accelerated in the early years of the depressi_o~
§lightly more than half I 52 percent I of the landlords interviewed had short term debts incurred to meet production expenses
for the 1934 crop. The average amount borrowed per plantation
was S2,3JO, which covered about halt the requirements for financing annual production. Interest rates on loans to landlords
were high, amounting to 10 percent on 1mvernment loans, 15 percent on bank loans, and 16 percent on merchant accounts. Combined intere;.t on loans and mortgage debts amounted to almost
as 111uch as the landlord's net labor income. The banks were the
predominant sources o! landlord short tenn credit, only about
22 percent of the short tem loan·s recorded in this sturty having
been supplied by government agencies. All of the government
loans went to landlords, since they held the only available
security, the crop lie~
l1an1ers in the seven southeastern cotton States benefited
ft'OIII etnergency crop production and feed loans, obtainin~ 51
percent of all loans granted in the country from 1931 through
1934. They also received 37 percent of the loans granted in
1933 and 1934 under the production credit ~ystem authorized by
the Farm ~redi t Act. Both of these types of loans, however,
benefited the plantation owner and cash tenant rather than the
share-cropp~
\The long ter111 debts of tenants are usually contracted with
ortllrough the landlord and are either securedbychattel mortgage on livestock or equipment, or simply carried forward on
the landlord's books and added to current borrowing as a lien
against ·future prortuction.
The tenant's short term debts for the current season are
usually incurred with the landlord, who provides the tenant's
share of expenses and his subsistence advances durin~ the crop
season, charging them against future production. Sometimes the
merchant mates the subsistence advances. The average time for
which advances were made, as shown by this survey, was 7 months,
and the average advance was $12.80 per fami ly per mon t_h !)
In a study of 112 croppers in North Carolina in 1928 subsistence advances were found to be 1110stly in the form of cash, and
to constitute more than 63 percent of the cropper's cash ram
inCOlle. Interest paid on those advances amounted to more than
10 percent of the croppers' casb inc0111e.
Dig1t1zed by
Google
xxvi
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
~nant rates of interest are even higher than landlord rates.
The merchant and landlord charge high interest rates to compensate for losses due to bad debts. llowever, the spread l>etween
landlord rates and tenant rates is greater than the usual percentage of loss on bad debts.
The high rates of interest involved in this system of credit
to share-croppers is one of the major factors preventing their
rise on the agricultural ladder. Basing the credit system on
crop liens discourages tenants from di versifying their crops,
and often forces landlords to market crops at disadvantageous
times_:1
Inco■e
t!et incomes in the Cht ton Belt are low. In 1934 the average
net income ·per plantation was $6,024_.:J With A.A.A. benefits
included, 1934 incomes compared favorably with tho::;e for 1929.
L!his survey indicates that in addition to the si1.e of the
plantation, plantation income is related to crop ac1·cs per plantation, total cotton acres per plantation, the proportion of
crop land in cotton, the productivity of the land, and managerial
efficiency. On the average, the larger the plantation, the
higher the gross and the net incom!8
1The operator's gross cash incomeon the645 plantations studie<'raveraged $5,095. The lowest average i:rross ca:,h income wa::;
received by operators in the Muscle Shoals area, and the highest
in the Arkansas River area. On 38 percent of the plantations,
it was found that the gross cash income of the operator was
less than $2,000; it was between $2,000 and $5,000 on 32 percent
of the plantations; and more than $5,000 on the remaining 30
percent.
The average net income of the operators was $2,572, ahout 10
percent of which was in the form of home consumed products. The
net income ranged from an average of $1,340 in the Muscle Shoals
area to $7,149 in the Arkansas River area.
The landlord's net income in 1934 was sufficient to pay him
6 percent on his invested capital and about $850 for his labor
income. In poor years the landlord is likely to lose heavily
on his part of the expenses and also on the tenant income paid
in advance for subsisten~
t!he proportion of net plantation income received hy share
tenants is very small. In 1934, the average net income per
family of the wage hands, croppers, share tenants, and renters
on plantations in the 11 areas survered was only $309, or $73
per capi t~
.The average net income per family of wage laborers was $180
for the year, varying from $213 in the Arkansas River area to
$70 in the Interior Plain area. The average annual net income
Digitized by
Google
SUMMARY
xxvii
per capita in this l!roup ran!!ed from $52 to $92.~are-croppers
in this survey, who made up more than half the total n1J111ber of
families, averaged $312 per family, or $71 per capita. Their
average net income per capita and per family was highest in the
Atlantic Coast Plain area and lowest in the Lower Delta. In the
latter area, the croppers' average net income amounted to $38
per person, or slightly more than 10 cents per day. Other share
tenants had an averaee net inc0111e of $417 per family, or $92
per capita, the highest of any occupational grouJLJ
~ majority of the 650 cash renters were in the Black Belt and
Lower Delta areas. These areas were among the poorest studied,
and consequently the average net income for renters is considerably lower than the comparable average for other share tenants.
The average for cash renters was $354 per family. The Upper
Del ta had the highest aver~e net inco111e for cash renters-$561
per family, or $146 per capi~
The landlord's income and the incomes of the various classes .
of tenants are determined by different factors. The landlord
who operates with wav.e hands assumes the entire risk, and the
entire profit or loss accrues to him. The landlord who operates
with share-croppers passes some of the risk to the cropper. However, the landlord still furnishes all the fixed capital and,
as with wage labor operation, the landlord stands to lose or
gain heavily while the cropper's income is low and steady like
that of the laborers. In the case of tenants receiving more
than half of the crop, and with renters, thelandlord's risk is
less and his income per acre lower.
LiYin& Conditions
I.fuel and house rent are part of the tenant's perquisites
but the houses furnished are among the poorest in the Nation.
Unpainted four-room frame shacks predominate. Screening is the
exception rather than the rule and sanitation is primitive. In
a study of farm housing in the Southeast in 1934, it was found
that wells furnished the source of water for over 80 percent of
both owner and tenant dwellin~
L!he low income for large families provides only a meagre subsistence. About one-third of the net income is in the form of
products raised for home consumption-a few chickens and eggs,
home killed pork, syrnp, corn meal, cowpeas, and sweet potatoes.
These food items are nsually available only in the late summer
and fal.Ll
t_Quring the months when crops are cultivated, the tenant
uses another third of his income, at the rate of about $13 per
month, for food-mostly flour, lard, and salt pork-and also
fo, kerosene, medicine, anrt such clothing purchases as cannot
be postponed till fall. Another third is spent for clothing
Dig1t1zed by
Google
xxviii LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
-'lnd incident'lh, 11c;1J-'ll1y soon ;ifter the f-'lll "settlement." Thus,
by wi!lter, resources are exhausted i!.nd "slim rations" begin.
Clntliing, •1s11ally purchased once ii. ye;i.r, i!'> of the poorest
q11,1lity. Oftf'n the children do not hilve sufficient Wilnn clothing to gn to scho~
~ 15 percent of the plaTJUtions studied the ten-'lnts were re'.}Ui red to mi!.ke all purchilses ilt commiss.:i.ries operilted by the
lilndlord. On i!.nother 11 percent of the pli!.ntations there were
co'llmi'is:i.ries fnr optional use. A co'llmissary m;iy be i\ Sil.Ying
feature fnr the ten3nt if the adv,1ntage of wholesi!.le buying is
passed on tn him. If not, it is only an -'l.dded profit-m-'lker for
the J;rndlord.
f',-w of the tenants in thic; stndy had g:udens and only 55 percent hi!.d cows. The effect of poor housing and !lleager diet W'lS
reflected in the he'llth of the:- families studied. The ]'lck of
bitlance in di':'t is 1.:irgely responsible for pell:1gr;i. il.nd the
digestive disnrders th-tt ;i.re prev;i.leat in the South. L-tck of
screening m:ikcs the control of "1-'ll1tri-1. difficlllSJ
Mohility
l!,~n.:ints ,,.,ho IJ.we nnt s 11cceeded in loc-1.ting on good 1-'lnd or
with a fair 1-'lndlord are continually sei!.rching for oetter conditions, many moving from f-1.rm to f;i_rm ei\ch fi!.ll. Although
they move often, th~y do not move f-tr. Most of them remilin in
the connty of their hirth or locil.te in -'ldjoining co11nties.
The ri\teof farm-to-fann mobility appei!.rstobe closely linked with tenure status. The higher the farmer climbs up the
11
:igricult11r;i_l litdder" the more st;i.ble he becnme~
\_Mohi.lity within the farming occupiition is alsn rel'ltively
common .1s f;irmers chi!.nge from one tenure to 1.nother. In periods
of prosperity, the tendency is to move up the ;i_gricultural liiddcr, while in ye;i_rsof unprofitable operi!.tion there is a tendency
to shift tiown the ladder. Until 1910 there was a net movement
UP'"-"rd. Sinre 1910 croppers hi\ve m.:tde little progress towi\rd
sh;i_re ten.:tncy, i\nd t~erc hi!.s been -'ln act1ial decrease in the
number of renters 'ind owners~
U third type of mobility is the shift from the open country
to town il.S the tenant periodiciilly tries hie, lnck i\t th~ Si\Wmill, the cottonmill, or odd jobsj
L,Ihe evidence indic'ltcc, thi\t Negro ten;i.nts are i\ more st!\ble
group with respect to resjdence than white ten.:tnts. This is
probably accounted for, to ii. l;i_rge extent, by the fact th!lt
then~ ;i.re rel.'.lt i vely fewer opportunities for Negroes outside of
i\griculture ;ind thi!.t Negro tenants ;i.re more easily satisfied
thi\n ii.re white tenants..]
L.!he ;i.ver.:tge number of years lived on each farm by white
planti!.tion families in this study was 4.8 years, ;i.nd by Negro
Digitized by
Google
SUMMARY
xxix
families, 6. l years. White share-croppers lived on each fann
for an average of 4.4 years, and Negro share-croppers for 5.6
year~
In a study of farmers in South Carolina in 1933, it was found
that wbi te tenants move about once every 4 years, and Negro tenants once every 5 or 6 years. White farm owners move a.bout once
in ll years, and Negro owners once in 12 years.
Education
l!!'e education of children in farm families of the Southeast
bas been sadly neglected, chiefly because of the low tax base
in plantation areas. Southern States tax themselves for schools
as much per dollar of wealth as do other sections, but the
wealth is so inadequate that the resulting revenue provides a
very saall appropriation per child. In addition, as a result
of large families and migration of adults of the productive
ages, southern rural districts have a much greater number of
children to educate, in re lat ion to the number of productive
adults and to the value of taxable property, than do other areas.
The agricultural system of the Southeast, which encourages the
labor of children during the school term, is a further handicap
to education. The families most directly affected by the low
educational standards of the Southeast are the tenant farmers
and ~ha.re-croppers, and more especially, the Negro share-croppe~
t!.n order to appreciate the significance of school finance in
the South, white and Negro education must be appraised separately. Per capita appropriations for Negro teachers' salarie3
tend to be in inverse ratio to the percentage of Negroes in the
total population. In counties with large Negro majorities, where
many pupils can be crowded bto one-room schools, per capita
expenditures for Negro teachers' salaries are lower than in
counties where Negroes are more scattered. In areas of large
Negro population such as the Black Belt and Del ta counties where
white pupils are scattered, per capita expe~ditures for whites
are relatively high,· whereas in "white" are&!\ per capita expenditures for white teachers are not so great.>
\.....Transportation of pupils to consolidated schools has tended
to equalize urban-rural opportunities of white children in recent
7ears, but this improvement has not affected Negro schools to
an appreciable extent in most parts of the Sou~ During the
depression, educational conditions in the Sou th have been markedly retarded. Salaries of teachers, always low, have been drastically cut, and school terms have been shortened, some States
closini their rural schools as early as January 1 or February
1. t£he Heiro school tenn in both urban and rural areas is much
shorter than that of white schools. One-teacher schools, which
Dig tized by
Google
xxx
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
1T1nst directly ;iffect cotton pl;int;ition families, showed the
gre;itest discrepancy in length o! school term.
The edllcational level of the Southeilst is given Mtional
significilnce by the fact thilt large nllmbers of persons born in
the Southe;ist mil.ke their life contribution in other parts of
the United State~
Relief and Hehahili tation
When co'llpared with other p11.rts of the country, the Eastern
Cotton Sutes h;id :i. rehtively high rur11.l relief rate in 1933,
the first year of the Federal relief program. Between April
1934, when the runl reh-'l.bi li tat ion program was inaugurated,
-'Ind June 1935, there w1ts little ch;inge in the combined r11r!!l
relief ;ind rehabilitation rate in this are1t, while the rate was
risin;,: gener.1lly in other :i.reas. Duri'lg this period the Easterri Cntton Belt ge11er::tlly hi!.d 11. lower combined monthly rural
relief and rehabilitation rate th.1n other areas.
Severa.1 factors contributed to this low relief i!.nd rehabilit;it ion rate. The chief !1.ctnr was the rise in the pri.ce of
cotton following theli!.•1ncliingof the A.A.A. crop control program,
which brought rel::ttive prosperity to those fortunate enough to
h;ive retained st;itus in the fi!.rm operator group. A11 extensive
c; hi ft in;,: of unernp loy :ib 1 e cases to the care of county .1.dmi. n is t r.1.t i ve units in this are;i, and development of an experienced case
wnrk personnel to weed out undeserving cases, helped to keep
down relief rolls. IJ~groes, no doubt, were under-represented
on relief rolls partly because of discrimin.1.tinn 11.gainst them,
;ind ;ilso beca.11se Negroes made up the lilrge m:ijori ty of families
on pl:1ntations where paternalistic landlord-ten:int relationships,
persisting longer th:i.n no sm;iller fa.rming UTlits, served to keep
plantll.tion hmilies off relief. M;iny landlords did not favor
their tenants going on relief, viewing this form of assistance
as a possible demoralizing influence on a hitherto passive labor ~upply. On the other hand, some large oper:itors did shift
the burden of caring for their tenants to the relief administration, which accounted in part for the relatively heavy relief
load in l 93~
Displacement of tenMts during the early years of the depression was an important factor in the rural relief situation.
Rel i~f grants and reh:ibi li tat ion loans were necessary where the
"furnishing" system ceased to operate, bnt these grants .1nd
loa11s were relatively few and of sm:ill size among plantation
fami 1 ies, and more frequent among families on smaller farming
units. Plantation families with a relief history received aid
for :in average of only 3~ months during 1934, relief being only
il supplementary means o! support and the turnover on relief
rolls being very ra.pid for these cases.
Digitized by
Google
SUMMARY
xxxi
The rural rehabilitation program exp11.nded more rapidly in the
South than in other regions and supplied a large number of form
laborers and croppers with work stock, thus giving them a higher
tenure status, at least temporarily. Studies of the capability
of farm families on relief in several Eastern Cotton States indicate that more than one-half of the families with able-bodied
11er,nbers were considered by the county officials to be c11.p;i.ble
of participating successfully in a reh11.bi li tat ion progr;i.m to the
extent of attaining ownership of work stock and farming equipment.
ConstructiYe Measures
Constructive efforts to improve the tenant system must take
into account certai~ basic conditions in the South, especially
those relating to the quantity and quality of the population,
the inter-regional and international aspects of cotton economy,
the type of farm organization to be promoted, and the slowness
of fundamental social change. Specific programs in the past
have been concerned with improvementofState legislation, submarginal land retirement, soil conserv~tion, crop diversification, production control, and credit reform. The operations of
these long range programs are hampered by the tenant system to
the extent that the landlord-tenant relationship hinges on a
money crop agreement. Direct and work relief have alleviated
distress in a wholesale manner. The rehabilitation program has
been well adapted to readjust farmers to a self-supporting basis.
Still more fundamental is' the recent proposal to promote the
ownership of family-sized farms.
THI ~VERAGE COTTON PLANTATION
(Based on rounded aYerages for the M6 plantations)
L,!he typical cotton plantation operated by 5 or more families in 1934 included a total of 907 acres, of which 385 were
in crops, 63 idle, 162 in pasture, 214 in woods, and 83 in waste
land (Figure 11. Approximately 86 percent of the 907 acres
was owned by the operating landlord and 14 percent was rented
fro11 other owners. Of the crop land harvested, 1 44 percent was
planted to cotton. On the typical plantation the wage hand
cultivated 45 crop acres, the cropper 20, the other share teMnt
26, and the renter 24.
The plantation had a total value of about $28,7002 of which
$21,700 was in land, $3,900 in buildings, $1,900 in animals, and
11Zclad1n1 crop land b&rYested b7 renters.
2 11:c1ud1n1 operator•s residence, clns, &nd co.. 1ssar1es.
Dig tized by
Google
PLANTAT IONS HAVING FIVE OR MORE FAM ILIES
BASED ON 6 46 TYPICAL COTTON
TOTAL FAMILIES 14 ,
-·--_-~
l
~-,. -,.
i
+
--
... . .......
-
.-.....
..
l<t
-
~EHANT
- . -
t
!
l
- -~AST~E
-·
-
"-JJ
e2i
'<
C")
0
~
rv
-
-
-
lJ
_
•
WAG E
U.&l.H\C
---·
-
VO
WOODS
()~~
~
t_""}: \ ) ~ -
(j'
~Jll..:li
~&.. f'\i
I 116 fB
:1'!::::::laJICHuRc
~
i''
- -1.JA._J··~
11
=-=-=-=-=-=-=_-__::-_-_-_-_-_:
-
-
~",~-=-=~-=-=
.w.JM. - - - - -
IOL.E
11:
Clil
{?
--, ~ . J l i l\{
====-
a
-11llli.
~
~~
l iii,w-"ffi."N 'b ,;$
i~~~ii1 n
'j}
1~t:t~
-~ ~ - J ~ 'll1111111~,,R
- - - ---
f
TENANT
:::0
0
➔
h
:JJJ
~
0
0
~
I
•
1 11111
-------- -- --
0
t""'
:z
•J i
·1>
1 - - - - - - -· -
:z
>
Q
311111:llllllllllllll ~~~(}
E;=~~{t~~=~~t
111iq~·1- -_ ffSCJ c-~
-·· ~-·
-
{."I
CJ.~ (p
-
id~~~~~~~=
0()Jd)
~
'i:s,,
Q
u ~,,,,
-..-
-<_j1 ...... ~--~ -~
~">Q
:.ii aft~
J r.\J
Ct'
-
--
-
---=---------~~~-=-=-=~~JIii "'■
__
_..
I
TENANT :_-_-_-_-_-_-.::.::=====-=--=-·
- - - - - - OWNER'S- - - - - - ·
_____ - · CROPS - - - - - - ·
: ,-~11 I
Qg-· ..
,',\. -· --
>
u)7~--··<
•. -·- •;"~
") r
l'f nJ {J
_
_
-
--
PASTURE
-- ...... - --.
.......
_
~c - ~- OJ\,- -
cc·
;.
CY
,,
....
aCiOJ'"'
0
~
I
_-:
-
:
·-
_
-
-
~ --------------------- - -----------
.....
-,i
l ~ •,
,lr.,,~
N
, --·---._ --·_
'- .~==-=-~~:-:-=-=--~=--,-,,
... .
t""'
~.-. - ....- - -.. ........
'~'---.......~
::--:----1
.-.__-__
'I
l,...
""....
"....
..~~»--x---.
-
63
83 , IDLE
WAGE HANDS 3 , TENANTS 11 .
--- - ~~~~~~~~~~ - --
- ·
WASTE
907 , CROPS 385 , WOODS 214 , PASTURE 162 ,
TOTAL ACREAGE
( 1934 )
PLANTATION
COTTON
AVERAGE
THE
FIG. I
11111111111
("'>
cg
,'l
QGla,
%
·f.-:1\'11l)
. crr-'~.1,i
"
• 116,J ' • , •
:z
>
:z
...
:z
...
0
CZI
Clil
(")
......
0
0
:z:
"'O
t""'
>
:z:
...
.......
>
0
:z:
SUMMARY
xniii
Sl,200 in implements. The average long term indebtedness was
Sll, ?00.
The typical plantation was occupied by 14 families, exclusive
of the landlord's family, of which 3 were headed by wage hands,
8 by croppers, 2 by other share tenants, and l by a renter. Of
these fa111ilies, 2 were white and 12 were Negro. The average
family, the head of which was 41 years of age, consisted of about
four persons, of wh0111 two to three were employable. The average nulJlber of rears of residence on the 1934 farm was 8 years
for all families, 7 for wage hands, 7 for croppers, 11 for
other share tenants, and 13 for renters.
The typical plantation had a gross income of 19,500 in 1934
of which approximatelr $7,000 was obtained from sales of crops
and livestock products, 1900 from A.A.A. payments, $200 from
land rented out, and 11,400 from home use production.
The net plantation income, after deducting expenses, was
16,000. The operator's net inc0111e averaged 12,600, leaving
13,400 to be divided among the tenants. If 6 percen~ is allowed as the return on the landlord's investMent, he received approxi■ ately S8:50 as his labor income, or $2 per crop acre.
Wage bands had a net income of $180, .croppers $312, other
share tenants 1417, and renters $354. The average tenant family received a subsistence advance of Sl3 per month for7 mont~
D1g1•zed by
Google
Digitized by
Google
Chapter I
PLANTATION AREAS AND TENANT CLASSES
i~ie bellu plantations have persisted asubits to a remarkable degree. Some hrge acreages have been broken up into smaller proprietorships and others have been reduced in size, but
in the area characterized by ph.nutions in 1860 larg,e-scale
operations persist to a remarkl'lble extent todlly.
This fact is graphically illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. In
Figure 2 large numbers of slaves per owner indicate concentration of plantations in 1860. In Figure 3 a heavy percentage of
tenants in the total of farm operators in 1930 indicates s1m1lilr concentration 70 years later. The coincidence of the areas
of concentration is striking. Between these two dates there
are two other points of time at which the concentration of largescale fat'lls can be indexed. In 1900 the Census enumerated the
nu111ber of rented farms per owner, showing similar concentrations, -and in lQl0 the special plantation inquiry showed plantations with five or more tenants located for the most part in
the sue areas.
CHARACTERISTICS OF PLANTATION &REAS
The location of the areas of large-scale ownership and operation is deter111ined by the adaptability of the land to largescale production, chiefly of cotton (Figure 4). The States of
Virginia, Kentucky, and most of Tennessee, as well as the mountainous areas of North Carolina and Georgia, have almost no
large-scale tenant operations. The rolling Upper Piedmont section has very few plantations. Likewise few are found in the
Muscle Shoals area, the Mississippi Ridge, and the Interior
Plain west of the Mississippi, but the level lands of eastern
North Carolina, the Lower Piedmont and Opper Coastal Plain of
South Carolina, Georgia, and Alab11111a, and the Del ta and Loess
Bluff regions of the Mississippi· and its tributaries in the
States of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas are regions of
heavy plantation coocentration.
These areas ar~ characterized by a high percentage of tenants, a high degree of concentration of land ownership, a heavy
proportion of Negroes, a very mobile population, per capi u farm
inc011es higher than those in other southern counties but lower
than those in other farming sections of the country, small proportions of urban and village dwellers, sc11rcityof industries,
1
Digitzed by
Google
2
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
FIG 2- SLAVES PER OWNER IN COTTON COUNTIES
OF THE SOUTHEAST
1860
Number of sloves
D
Fewer thon 5
§
5-10
lllilll 10-15
llllll 15-20
■ 20 ond more
Source : Eighth Census of the United Stoles : 1860
FIG. 3- PERCENT TENANCY IN COTTON COUNTIES
OF TH E SOU TH EAST
1930
Percent tenancy
['J
Less than 60
g
IIIIIl
60-70
10 -80
111111 80 - 90
■ 90 and more
Source : Fift eenth Census of the Un ited State s: 1930
A f - 2023, W PA
Digitized by
Google
PLANTATION AREAS AND TENANT CLASSES
3
large families, poor school !acili ties, especially for Negroes,
and utter subjection to King Cotton: boom when the King is
prosperous and gloom when the King is sick.
Periods of depression in cotton prices are sharp and frequent,
fluctuating around the long-time secular trend of general business conditions. Up to the advent of production control there
was a close interrelationship between the price of cotton in
1 year and production of cotton in the following year, as well
as the obvious relationship of current production to price. The
cycle consisted of 1 or ~ years of large production with accumulation of surplus, lowering of price, and subsequent cut in
acreage with a rising price, which in turn again stimulated
expansion to the point of overproduction. 1
Plantation Areas SurYeyed
The areas of the Southeast which are of particular interest
in a cotton 2 plantation study are shown in Figure 5. There is
a general cotton-tobacco region in the eastern portion of North
and South Carolina. This area has plantations of medium size
with only 9.6 percent of the proprietorships in tracts of over
2EO acres, according to tax record data obtained for this study
in 1935. A similar cotton-tobacco area is found in eastern and
southeastern Georgia. These two sections are referred to in
the present study as the Atlantic Coast Plain area.
West of the Coast Plain, extending southwest from North Carolina through South Carolina and swinging west through central
Alabama into east central Mississippi, is the Black Belt, the
oldest areaof large plantations. The populat.ion of this region
includes heavy percentages of tenants and Negroes, and 14.4
percent of the tracts contain more than 260 acres.
lfest of the Black Belt in North Carolina, South Carolina,
and Georgia, is the Upper Piedmont region where the plantations
are few, scattered, and small. Only 7.4 percent of the tracts
here have more than 260 acres. North of the Black Belt in Alabama and Tennessee is the Muscle Shoals Basin, similar in characteristics to the Upper Piedmont area. Another area of low
tenancy ratios and few plantations, resembling the Upper Piedmont, extends north and south through Mississippi and Tennessee
and is known as the Ridge or Hill section. 3
After this ridge is crossed the plantations again become
The Mississippi Bluffs, an area
larger and more frequent.
1woorter, T. J., Jr., n, PUtU of Citar,tt, tobacco, pp. 82-83, Chapel
B111, UnlYera1t1 or !forth carollna Preas, 1931. The cycle described tn
detall tor tobacco 1s also applicable to cotton.
2to include all lar1e-scale tenant ta!'ll1n1 1n the Southeast, certain rlce
llld sugar countlea 1n southern Lo111s1ana and certain tobacco counties or
tbe eastern parts or the Carolinas and southeastern Georgta should be added.
8»ot Included ln sample because or the Slll&l".l nu11ller or plantatlons ln the
area.
D1g1
zedbyGoogle
4
LAN DLORD AND
ENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTAT ION
FIG. 4 - THE COTTON BELT
Devol oo lo Cotton
111D H1ghes t
~
Medium
□ Lowest
I _ ~heostern
2-t:r
Source: SOUTHERN REGIONAL STUDY ,
Univer51ty of Nor th Cor ohno
AF - 201:3. W.P.A.
FIG 5 - THE COTTON SOUTHE AS T
I A tlant,c Coast Pl ain
2 B lack Belt
3 Upper Pied mont
4 M i ss1 ss1pp1 Ridge
5 M1 ssiss1pp1 Bluf fs
6 De lta
7 Interior Plai n
8 Red Rive r
9 Arkansas River
10 Muscle Shoa ls
Source . SOUTHERN REGIONAL STUDY,
University of Nor th Corolino
AF- 2027. WP A
Digitized by
Google
PLANTATION
AREAS AND TENANT CLASSES
5
seYeral counties wide e-xtending north from the Louisiana line
through Mississippi and Tennessee, includes 11. number of mediumsized plantations with 10.l percent of the proprietorships containing more th11.n 260 11.cres.
Along both banks of the Mississippi itself, and extending up
its tributaries, the Red, the Yazoo, and the Arkansas, are the
Delta or Bottom Lands• where large-scale, highly organized phntat ions persist and are predominant in the rura.l economy. These
Vt.st-named areas have the heaviest tenant ratios and heaviest
Negro population of any sections in the South. Here 111.rge proprietor.sh ips make up 17. 7 percent of all land tracts, the highest proportion in any area. Another 11.rea where plantations are
few and very scattered is the Interior Plain of central Louisiana
aad Arkansas.
Mle I-PUIITATI• EIUDATED, II'
-».
P'I ant at ions " - r a led
.....,.,
Percent
Total
848
100.0
Atlantic C-t P'laln
U,,.r P ' i - t
M.::k llol t tAJ•
11.::k Bait CBI"
Upper Del ta
!!II
40
112
8.2
17.3
99
15.3
m
~
Delta
1111K la Shoal a
Interior Plain
lliui11iP,i lluffa
ArbnluRi-,er
20. 7
50
1.1
22
3.4
4.8
30
1111 Riv•r
8. 7
47
7.3
28
29
4.3
4.5
......... • · elller - N ll•M •Jffllf•
- - . . • .i-,11,.
Table 111.nd Figure 6 show the
nu■ber
of plantations includ-
ed in tbe saaple fl'OII each of these areas.
POPULATION TRENDS &ID PLANTATION LABOR
A dolllinant factor in the southern social and economic ~ystem
is tbe pressure of population on resources as the resources are
now used. The extensiYe and alaost exclusiYe use of large areas
for cotton culture has limited the expansion of demand for manpower on fan1s largely to the expansion in cotton acreage, while
the increase in consumption of that commodity has by no means
kept pace with the expansion of population. In fact, the rate
of increase in cotton consu111ption has hardly exceeded the rate
of increase in product hi ty per man and the expansion of acreage
in the Southwest; hence, the increase in number of persons resident
•rncllJCl• Opper Delta, Lo•r Delta, Red R1Yer, and Artanaaa RlYer areas.
6
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
on cotton !arms of the Southeast has not been great since the
Civil War in spite of a marked natura1 5 population increase in
the South. Such increase as has occurred on cotton farms cue
before 1010. As a result of these factors, the Southeast presents the paradox of too many people for the present system of
cash-crop fanning, and at the same time a large acreage of idle
though fertile land.
Large families have been encouraged by the plantation system
because cotton production creates heavy demands for labor in
the spring and fall over and above the demands of nonnal crop
operation. Landlords prefer to have this excess labor available on the plantation rather than to import labor for plantinl
and harvesting. They assign a "one horse" or "two horse" crop
to a tenant, largely on the basis of the family labor available.
FIG. 6 -
PLANTATIONS
ENUMERATED
ARK
Each dot
re pres ems
one plontot1on
/\f - 70?~, WP fl.
Source. Table I
Hence, large tenant families have been, at least until recently,
an economic asset to both landlord an~ tenant. 7
Largely because of the economic advantage of large families,
the natural increase of the rural population in the Eastern
Cotton States has been more rapid than in any other part of the
6 Natural
increase raters to the excess ot births over deaths, i.•., the
rate at 11Jhlcb the populatlon would increase U tt.ere were no ■ igrat1011.
Actual 1ucrease ls the result or natural increase and m1g~atlon.
8 As much acreage as can be cu1t1vated wltt. one or two horses.
7Tbere bas been so■e lncl lcatlon tb.a t a large ta■ 11Y la no longer an econo■ lc asset.
See chapter x.
Digitized by
Google
PLANTATION AREAS AND TENANT CLASSES
7
country, except in the Appalachian Mountain Area and some parts
of the Rocky Mountain Area. The result has been that the needs
of the plantation have been plentifully supplied and that there
has also been a considerable surplus of labor for other sections.
This surplus labor supply has, in turn, reduced the bargaining
power of the individual plantation tenant, making it increasingly difficult for him to free himself from the plantation system
and become an independent farmer. Thus, it may be said that the
plantation system by placing a premium on large families perpetuates a high rate of natural population increase in the South,
and that this high rate of increase by producing a surplus labor
supply in turn tends to perpetuate the plantation system.
The very rapid natural increase of the southern rural population is shown by the fact that the ratio of children under
5 years of age per 1,000 women 15 to 44 yearsof age was 591 in
the rural farm population of the 7 cotton States in 1930 as
against 541 for the country as a whole I Appendix Table 21. This
high rate of increase bolds true for the rural non-farm population as well. Owing to a higher death rate, especially a higher
infant death rate, the Negro natural increase bas been less rapid than the white. For native whites the ratio of children under
5 years of age per 1,000 w0111en 15 to 45 in 1930 in the rural farm
population of the cotton States was 609 compared with a ratio of
568 for Negroes in the same population group I Appendix Table 21.
The excess of births over deaths in the South in 1930 was
about 15 per 1,000, which would mean an annual rate of natural
increase of 1.5 percent each year, enough to double the southern
rural population in about 45 years if none of the natural increaent moved awa,. 8 Looking back 45 years to 1885, however,
it appears that eTell with the higher rate prevailillg in those
years, 9 the rural fana dwellers of the South 10 did not double
in numbers but increased onl7 slightlJ. Evidently milliolls of
people emigrated daring the generation.
Census figures give some measure of the extent of this aigration. They indicate that the rural fara South in the decade
1920 to 1930 exported about a quarter of a aillion persons each
year to cities.1 1 Census statistics of birthplace further indicate that 24,100,000of the native born population of the United
States in 1930 were born in the rural Southeast 11 bot only
8Wootter, T. J., Jr., •8oatber11 Popalatlon and Soclal Pl&1111ln1•, 8ocwi
lorces, October tfll&.
'a1rth8 and deatha 1D tbe Soutb baYe not been realstered tor a loaa eaoulb
perlod to aerYe u tlle buls tor detenlalaa loaa tt■e treads or popalattoa, but tb• cbUd-•aaa ratlo ud ncb blrtb and deatb stattstlcs as are
&Y&llable ladtcate a alo• decllae la tbe rural rate or lncreue.
10 soutb 1tlantlc ud laat Soutb Central States, Arkansas, ud Loulslana.
11voorter, T. J,, Jr.,~- cit.
1S.1ra1a1a, Nortb Caro11aa, Soutb Caro11na,Oeora1a, r1or1da, KeatucQ, Teaaesaee, 1laba■a, Mtaatutppl, Arkansas, and Lo111a1ana.
C1g1tzed by
Google
8
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
17,500,000 of them were living in the area of their birth. Thus,
it is evident that over 6,600,000 had 110Ted elsewhere, probabl7
SOllle 3,8JO,OOO leaving the section entirely, and 2,800,000 110..-ing t o southern cities. 18 Thus, the southeast rural districts,
after supplyi ng their own growth, had exported about a fourth
of their natural increase in population, supplying a large proportion of the growth of 90Uthern cities, and sending &boat
3 ,800,000 to other sections (Firure 7).
FIG. 7- PERCENT WHICH NET GAIN OR LOSS BY INTERSTATE
MIGRATION FORMS OF NUMBER BORN IN THE STATE, 1930
.
~
IIOHT
IO,QHO
WYO
UT4
•11,z
Percent
D
-10 and less
0-10-0
~0-10
1!1!!111 10-20
Source : SOUTHERN REGIONAL STUDY,
University d North Carolina
AF - 2017, W PA
This was the population trend up to Ul30. Tbe soutllern tarms
were exporting population to the sections wllere laborer s were
in demand, first ·to the West, then to eastern and ■ id-western
industrial cities. Since 1930 the natural increase has continued
at approximat e ly the sa11e rate but the urban demand tor t his
excess labor supply has ceased. During the depressi on years
the population piled up in plantation areas and as the Agricultural Adjustment Administration barred the entrr of new tan1ers
into agriculture, the proble111s of relief and rehabilitation in
the South were consequently accentuated.
18400,000 ot tb• s,eoo,ooo are co■penaated tor bJ
rural dtetrtcta tro■ otber aecttona, ao tb&t tbe
ta &,400,000. Tbe a&ll ezcbana• ot populatton
and rural dJatrtcta ta dl•reaard•d ln the &boYe
tb• 110Ye■ant to aoutbern
net loas tlldtcated &boYe
betwHn soutbern ct tl es
calcul&tlon.
Digitized by
Google
PLANTATION AREAS AND TENANT CLASSES
9
TENANT CLASSES
The predominant social characteristic of plantation re 6 ions
is the class-caste system which is built around the landlordtenant relationship, for tenllncy hlls become not only a method
of milking a living but also a way of living.
While the pl;rntlltion proprietorship has continued since preCivil War dllys, merely shrinking somewhllt in size, the methods
of operation have undergone radical changes. The first of these
was, of course, the shift from slave to free labor. The next
was the shift from hired labor to half shllre-cropping, which
be;;:an very soon after the Civil War. 14 Operl\tion by wage labor
continued on those pll\ntations whose owners could afford to finance such operations, but in most instances it was replaced
by various foms of tenancy. Share-cropping, in which the farm
operator contributes only his labor and receives in return ll
share of the crop, has persisted, but other !oms of tenancy
have also emerged. The "third and fourth" arrangement is made
with tenants who own their work stock. From the~ the landlord,
instead of receiYing half, receives a third of the cotton and
a fourth of the corn. These tenants, together with other miscellaneous share tenants, are referred to as "other share tenants" throughout this study. Tenants of a still more independent
type rent the land outright, receiving the whole proceeds of
their crop minus a fixed rental which may be in cash or produce.
These tenants are referred to as "renters" throughout this study.
The principal landlord-tenant arrangements are shown in detail in Table 2 as adapted from Boeger and Goldenweiser. 16 The
table presents only the most usual arrangements. There are so
many possible modifications and combinations that the relationships are often quite complicated. A tenant may rent from the
owner and sub-rent to share-croppers. Mechanized plantations
s0111eti111es perform heavy machine jobs for all tenants, charging
the expense against their crops or reducing the proportion of
the crop allocated to each tenant. In general, however, practically all arrangements are merely modifications of the patterns
outlined in Table 2. Thus plantation families are usually readily classifiable into the groups used in this study, uiz., wage
hands; croppers or half share tenants; other share tenants, who
are mostly third and fourth tenants owning work stock; renters;
and owners. A sixth group is m.:i.de up of displaced tenants,
former tenants who no longer have a part in the plantation
1'arooke, R. P., fhe Agrarian Revolution in Georgia, Uotverslty or Wtsconeln, Bullet.In 639, 191', and Woorter, T. J., Jr., legro Jtigration,
w. T. Gray and Company, New Tork, 192015Boeger, E. A. and Goldenwetser, E. A., A Study of the fenant Systl!ss of
1aAinz in tu Tazoo-Jtississippi Delta, U. s. Depart•ent ot Agriculture,
Bulletin 337, pp. &-7, 1916.
oig1 -z-d by
Google
10
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
economy, are not financed by the landlord, but are allowed to
live in the plantation houses and often to cultivate some land,
mostly for home use production. 16
Although share-cropping is predominant, all classes of tenants often mingle on the same plantation. Even though the landlord may prefer half share-cropping, he wi 11 often take a tenant
on tenns of third and fourth share or st r~; ght rent if he has a
Taole
?- SYSTU,15 OF T[NURE•
i--
l,l,ptho1 of Rf''"ltin~
Sh, re-c r0r-r; .,]
~r
I
_
{Craooerc; I
---51-nrf" ~.. nt1n:i
{Sh"lr" Ten~nts)
c.,._o;.t,-q.. nt,n_g_ __
{CHh or StMj1ng f ! n ~ -
-
Landlord hrni1he1
l.•nd
L1rv1
l.;tnd
HotJc;e or c-10,n
~01sP or c,b,n
FuPI
House or cab,n
Fuel
Fu,..J
Tool~
Onf'"-.fnur th or O'"le-th I rC,
""1rlc: -;tock
of fert,
I, ,er
I
S.-e1
('n~-11'1 If of frrt 1 11,er
Feed for "'°rlc stoci..
Tenant furnhhe1
labor
Mork stock
L.,bor
l-'lbor
One-half of fertilizer
reed
F"eed for ..c,rlc stock
for 'M:lrk
stock
I fool,
Tools
S.ed
Seed
Thr~"'-fourths or t1110-
Fert i I i zer
thi .-d!li of fertiliter
Landlord receives
One-ha I f of
u,e
c rop
1
On~fourth or one-thi rt:J
Fixed amount in cash or
of the crop
lint cotton
I
Tenant receives
Ortf1'-h1I f
of th:=_lcrop .. T1iree-fourths or two-th, rrls of the croo
-8 - - - - - - ~ - - - - &dapted ,,.OIi to•;rr. [. A, /11'1:1 1i,ol'!erow,ri1it,.,
u•
.s.
(. •·· l
Oepul..,"t o, •oric.ulture. lull~tiro ))7,
Ent i f'"f! crop 14!'5S
ai'ftQunt
r i xe-d
Shd') of•~ r.11 .. 111 S)t,l•u of ,Dr■ t111 i• '-'• ,_oo-#1ssi.Uit,, l•lto.
nu. pp. &--7.
tract vacant, especially when production is expanding. Of the
plantations covered in this investigation, 4 percent were operated entirely by wage hands, 16 percent were operated entirely
by croppers, 3 percent entirely by other share tenants, 6 percent by renters, and 71 percent were mixed in tenure (Appendix
Table 31. On the mixed places, however, croppers predominated.
Both white and N'egro tenants were often employed on the same
plantation. Of the plantations studied 53 percent were operated entirely by Negro tenants, ::,percent entirely by white tenants, and 42 percent by both white and Negro tenants (Appendix
Table 41. In general, the percentage of Neg roes in the p 1 ant at ion
16 Th1s general c1ass1ricatton, 111th the exception or the displaced tenant
group, conrorms to the usage or the Census berore 1920, except that 1n
the earlier years or the Census all share tenants were combined. Recent
Census reports separate croppers trom other tenants but combine other
share tenants 111th renters who pay rent 1n k1nd rather than 1n cash.
Digitized by
Google
PLANTATION ARRAS AND TENANT CLASSES
11
population in each area followed the percentage of Negroes in
the rural population.
It ■ust also be remewibered that the relations between landlord and tenant are traditionally informal. Detailed agreements
are not usually worked out and contracts are practically never
written. Such records of advances and repayments as are kept
are almost always in the hands of the landlord. This bec011es
a cOIIIJ>licated account when debts from previous years are carried
forward and added to current advances. This situation places
Table 3-IML[S EIOCAGl:D IN AGRICUI.TIIIE 0 IN S{V[" SOUTtt:4SITRII COTTO" STATE S, 0
BY COLOR ANO TENURE STATUS 1860, 1910, 1930
~rcent
_,
2 , 105
100.0
2,102
100.0
1,180
56.0
1,267
60.)
527
25.1
484
Tenants
418
19.8
23.0
21.1
Ulborers
235
11.1
581
202
lt!les Engaged in Agriculture
l in
Color and Tenure Status
lllliO"
IE st ;•tee)
Total in agriculture
llunt>er
Percent
1,1:32
100.0
325
28. 1
White
0.ners
thousaf"ds)
-·
325
1910
1930
Pt-rcent
9.6
925
«.o
835
)9.7
()irners
124
5.9
Te,.nts
477
22. 7
2).1
)24
15.4
101
486
242
""9ro
807
Laborer!:
•1sc•••'" •' 1-.rer• •• ..,...
n.3
807
5.1
11.5
ta,-.
•••--• .,....,..__ ...,-, ; •• Lo•i•i• ... 11iui••'"'• NtU carol IN, a"4t s..1111 caroli11a,
ch, ... U•r• •• • ..,, . . 11 ,...._, or rrN ..,,.•• .,. • i i .
,-u.. ,,.,.. C.... of
.._rce:
,,,,nU•ro.
••-•ta.
the absolute control of relationships in the hands of the landlord and the fairness of settle11ents is largely dependent upon
his sense of justice. The tenant's only recourse is to move,
which of course does not adjust bis past transactions but merely
enables hi~ to seek more satisfactory conditions.
Thus the prosperity of landlord and tenant are inten«)ven
aod mutually dependent upon three principal factors: C11 the
productivity of the land, 121 the efficiency and energy of the
landlord, and 131 the ability and energy of the tenant. There
is evidence that these factors also interact on each other. In
their efforts to farm more efficiently the most able landlords
tend to get the 1110st productive land. ID their wanderings to
better their condition the most able tenantseventually gravitate
to the fairest landlords. Under these conditions there tends
to be a multiplication of supemarginality with the best land,
the 1110st capable management, and the most efficient tenants at
the top, and a multiplication ofsubmarginality with the poorest
laad, the poorest managers, and the least able ten an ts at the
bottoa.
Digitized by
Google
12
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
One effect of the landlord-tenant system as developed in the
South was to furnish an avenue through which the landless Negroes
and whites could, though with great difficulty, advance to a
status tigher than that of hired laborer and sometimes even to
ownership of the soil. Dr. W. E. B. DuBois in The Netro Landholder of Geortta summed up the result so far as the Negro was
concerned as follows:
No such curious and reckless experiment in emancipation has been made in modern times. Certainly
it would not have been unnatural to suspect that
under the circumstances the Negroes would become a
mass of poverty-stricken vagabonds and criminals
for many generations; and yet this has been far from
the case. 17
A thrifty Negro in the hands of well-disposed landowners and honest merchants early became an i ndependen t landowner. A shiftless, ignorant Negro in
the hands of unscrupulous landlords or Shylocks became something worse than a slave. The masses of
Negroes between these two extremes fared as chance
and the weather let them. 18
In 1860 the situation was simple. Practically all land in
the Southeast was cultivated by planters with slave labor or
by small white owners with their own family labor supplemented
occa~ionally by some hired labor. Hence, at that time practically all whites engaged in agriculture were owners and almost
all Negroes were laborers. In the 7 cotton States 19 represented in this study the total males engaged in agriculture 20
increased from about 1,100,000 in 1860 to 2,100,000 in 1930,
or 91 percent. This was for the most part a white increase
since Negroes engaged in farming increased only about 28,000
or 3 percent, as against a white increment of 940,000 or nearly
300 percent !Table 31.
In addition to the fact that the number of white owners increased about 50 percent, two entirely new classes came into
southern agriculture-the white tenants (including croppers and
renters) and white hired laborers. Together these numbered,
in 1930 in the 7 States, 783,000 white workers who were competing with Negroes for a place on the land. In fact, the
most st·riking trend in the past 30 years has been the increase
17
u. 8. Department or Labor, Bullettn 36, 1901, p. 848.
18 Idem, p. 668.
19
North Carolina, Sou ti! Carol1na, Georgia, A1ab1111a, Mlsslsstppl, Louisiana,
Arkansas.
20 Excludlng members or r11111111es working on home !arms.
and
Digitized by
Google
,,
PLANTATION AREAS AND TENANT CLASSES
13
of white tenancy in the South IFigure 8 and Table 31. Tenant
conditions can no longer be shrugged aside as features of the
race problem, as white and Negro tenants are in most respects
equally disadvantaged.
While Negroes were losing their proportionate representation
in the total agricultural picture, they markedly improved their
status in relation to the land. Though their status upon e111ancipation was purely that of laborer, by 1030 only 29 percent
of the Negroes in agriculture were laborers, 58 percent being
FIG.8
MALES ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE
IN SEVEN SOUTHEASTERN COTTON STATES
OWNERS
IHO
TENANTS
LABORERS
VERY SMALL NUIIIIEII OF FIIEr #EMO
AND WHITC TCNA/tTS
111111
IMO
ltaO
EACH FIGURE RIEPRESENTI 100,000 PERSONS
SOURCE: UNITED STATES CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE.
tenants, and 13 percent owners !Table 31. Among the whites, on
the other hand, the proportion of ownership declined steadily
with the rapid rise of white tenancy. Thus, the present Negro
tenants and owners are children and grandchildren of laborers
while the white tenants and laborers are children and grandchildren of landOWllers. For the former, tenancy is a step in advance
of the previous generation, for the latter a step backward.
The most alarming feature of the tenancy trend is the increase during the last 25 years in number and percent of tenants.21 So long as both the number of tenants and the number
tro■ 1930 to 1936 111 analysed aeparatelJ' ln chapter I. Thu analya1a ahowa that the ■aJor part ot the 1ncreaae 1n tenanc7
occurred tro■ 1910 to 1930 and that there was practlc&J.lJ' no change 1n
the cotton count11a rro■ 1980 to 1936.
21 Tbe depression trend
Digitzed by
Google
14
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THB COTTON PLANTATION
of owner operators increased it was fair to assume that some
tenants were passing into ownership and that their ranks were
recruited from former laborers. This was the case up to 1910
when the acreage of improved land was expanding.
Since 1910,
however, disasters have been more frequent in the Eastern Cotton
Belt and not only has it been more difficult for tenants to accumulate property but they have also felt an increased unwillingness to undertake the financial risks of owner operation. In
the 20 years preceding 1930, with practically no change in the
improved acreage, the number of owners decreased by 60,000 or
9 percent, while the number of tenants increased 172,000 or
nearly 20 percent (Table 31.
At the same time the number of
laborers decreased 21 percent.
It is there fore apparent that
there was some shift from ownership to tenancy as well as some
continued recruiting of tenants from the ranks of laborers.
When -cotton was prosperous laborers and te:iants shifted up
the agricultural ladder. Croppers purchased work animals and
became third and fourth tenants or renters. A few who already
owned animals and implements made first payments on land. Likewise, in times when the demand for labor on cotton farms was
strong, the tenant was in a better bargaining position. When
prices broke or yields were poor, the demand lessened and tenants were placed in a poor bargaining position even if they did
not lose their work animals or the equity in land purchased.
Si nee bad years out numbered good in the 25 years ending in
1935 the net shift was down the ladder, with losses in ownership
and independent renting and large gains in the helpless sharecropper class, fixing the institution of tenancy more firmly in
the southern agricultural organization. This arrest in the expansion of the family-sized farm is one of the most fundamental
changes in southern rural life, since tenancy not only determines
the way in which the soil will be cultivated and the product
divided, but also, as subsequent chapters will show, it profoundly influences the personal characteristics of the tenant, bis
housing and diet, bis social contacts, and his institutional
advantages.
Digitized by
Google
Chapter II
OWNERSHIP
Land use in the Old Cotton South is conditioned by the fact
that there has been little net increase in farm land. Much of
the best cotton land was taken up by 1840, and since then it
has been almost continuously cultivated in cotton and corn. The
rate at which this land has worn out and been abandoned has about
balanced the rate at which new land has been drained and cleared.
TREND OF LAND IN FARMS
The disorganization resulting from the Civil War caused a
sharp drop in land use up to 1870. From 1870 to 1910 cotton
production was expanding slowly and normally to meet the increasing demand. Some forest areas along the Atlantic and Gulf
coasts and in the Delta regions were cleared and brought under
cultivation. Many plantations which were not operated during
the disorganized period after the war came back into cultivation, with the result that land in farms increased.
From 1910 to 1923, however, the seven eastern cotton States
were prog·ressively laid waste by the boll weevil. Although each
State tended to recover from weevil ravages within a few years
after the maximum damage, few of the areas in the Atlantic States
recaptured their 1910 acreage, owing to the expansion of cotton
culture in Arkansas and Mississippi and the rapid expansion in
the Southwest. In these seven eastern cotton States, from 1920
to 1930, there was a loss of 19 million acres, or something over
14 percent of the land in farms. This was accompanied by a
slight decrease in improved acreage. That is to say, in addition to idle land within farms there are in the southeastern
States millions of acres in abandoned farms.
As a result, there was actually less land within the boundaries of farms in the Southea.•:;t in 1930 than in 1860 although
the improved or potential crop acreage had increased I Figure 91.
The depression-A.A.A. period practically crystallized the situation, although there was a slight increase both in total farm
land and in crop land from 1930 to 1935. The increase in total
farm land, however, was largely accounted for by an increase in
woodland and woodland pasture. Shifts in the size of agricultural tracts owned have been caused by subdivision or recombination of tracts previously used rather than occupation of
15
DigtizedbyGoogle
16
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
additional lands, except in special areas such as the Atlantic
Coast Plain where pine lands have been cleared.
Various systems of operation of cot ton lands have brought
about an extremely complex set of relationships between the ownership of the soil, the supervision of the agricultural operations, and the actual performance of the labor . These three
functions are combined in a number of ways . The small owner
operator perfoms all three. On the other hand, the resident
owner who operates with croppers owns the land and supervises
the operation while the croppers perform the labor. The cash
140
120
Total Acreage
100
..
u
80
- - - --
--- -
-
.
0
C
-
0
60
-- -
-_.,J,;_ _ _ _ ___,
j
40
20
-
--- - - -
f---- -
-
-
-
- -- -
- -
-
-
- -- + - - -- - - - - - + - - - t
FIG . 9- TOTAL AND IMPROVED ACREAGE IN FARMS IN
SEVEN SOUTHEASTERN COTTON STATES
1860 - 1935
Source · US. Census of AQriculture
AF-1485, W. P A
renter does not own the land but may supervise the labor of
others if the operations are large. The large landholder, if
he is able to devote some time to supervision, has a chance of
making not only interest on his investment but also profit on
financing or managing the operation of each tenant on his land.
Hence, there is a tendency to hold large tracts together. The
opportunity for the increase in family sized farms comes only
through the disintegration of these large tracts or the clearing and draining of new lands.
Some of the categories o! relationship of owner~hip to operation are classified by the Census in its tabulations of laborers, tenants, and owner operators. However, these categories
are based on the operation and not on theownersbip of the land.
A man may own 2,0CX) acres in a single tract but unless he operates
Digitized by
Google
OWNERSHIP
17
it hiaself or with hired labor he is not counted by the Census
as u owner operator. If he bas 50 tenants on his land, working under his supervision, the tract is recorded by the Census
as 50 separate tenant farms ud no account is taken of the common ovnership. Thus Census figures on size of farms do not reflect the size of proprietorships.
The tax books, are, therefore, the principal source of in!ol'llation as to the n1111ber and size of tracts owned, regardless
of how the tracts are operated. For this study material was
obtained frO!ll the tax books of 38 typical plantation counties
as indicating the trend of plantatlon ownership. 1 Tracts of
260 acres or more were considered as plantation size, since 260
acres was about the lowest liait of the sa111pte plantations studied. A decrease in the number of tracts above this size on the
tu boots would, therefore, index the subdivision of plantations
while the increase in the nuaber of large tracts would indicate
a reconcentration.
In 1934 only 12 percent of the proprietorships in the 38
cotton counties were plantation size (260 acres and over), 53
percent were between 50 and 260 acres, and 35 percent were below 50 acres, most of the last group being one-f11111ily farms
(Appendix Table 51.
TREND I I OWNERSHIP
Sise or Bolding
Ft'OII the Civil War to about 1910, when cotton production was
expanding nor111ally and tenants had the opportunity to make
enough money to pay for land and s0111e new acreage was being
brought under the plow, the disintegration of large proprietorships into smaller ones was steady. Table 4 shows the results
of this process in 20 Georgia plantation counties. Tracts of
260 or more acres constituted 38 percent of all tracts in 1873
and 16 percent in 1934, Although most of this change in proportion toot place between 1873 and 1902, there was a steady
decline in the average size of agricultural proprietorships
fr011 343 acres in 1873 to 185 acres in 1934. !gain most of this
decline occured soon after the Civil War.
The change in actual number of large tracts has not been so
rapid, howeTer, since the division of one large 2,000-ac_re
plantation into 20 100-acre tracts would reduce the percentage
of large tracts materially by the subtraction of only one such
1.ldY&Dta11 - · also taken or thl tact that I."· Banks ln hla ICOfl09,C$ of
,au f•-r• '" 61or1,a, Colubla Unl'nra1t7 Prua, 1906, had tabulated th•
11s1 or holdlnca ln 1878, 1eaa, i.aea, and 1902 tor 31 countl1a ln oeorgla,
80 1r Wlllch w1r1 ln th• cotton plantation aria.
Dig1wKI by
Google
18
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
tract. For this reason the increase in the number of small
tracts is much more rapid than the decrease in the number of
large tracts. The actual number of tracts of 260 acres and over
in the Georgia counties sampled decreased only from 4,099 in
Table 4-L4NO PROPlllETClloSIPS, BY ~llE, IN 20 GEOQG14 PL4NUTI~ COUNTIES,•
1873. 1902, 1922. 4NO 1934
1873
1922
l 'lO?
1934
Size of Proprietorship
Num~r
Total
10,E,•J)
Les-; thM
1U to
10
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
t.~r
Percent
!PO.O
17,010
100.0
20, 9'2
100.0
22. 397
100.0
1.0
0.1
6.6
190
l>l6
2. 3
J .3
10.H
2G. 5
75.2
663
l.A~~
2. ~12~
3.1
3.0
14 .0
?4 .6
24 .3
1.'32
959
3,337
5,330
5, 094
4 .J
14. 9
23.8
22. 7
1?. 7
10.8
5.2
2. 3
2,599
2. 144
11.6
9.6
99~
503
4.5
114
7q
'ICr@~
LU -'IC res
SU '!iCres
lW .!cres
l 7'J 'lcres
;u to
50 to
100 to
I
Pe,rc,~nt
71c
I. 177
175 to
250 ~cres
2~0 to
5l.J(i ,c res
~100 to 1, UC,U :!IC res
1, UJO acres ~nd over
I?·"
23.8
4 ,.?40
1,91 '>
') .n6~
I. 31'
17 .6
19.0
12. l
6.6
2. l01
1,175
5.'6
716
~v("'r.Jge acre,,ge ~r hold,,,~
- - - - -~-
3.4t15
5~7
J,
HJ
I
-- L - - - - -
---
llt,.na.s, lull~. c111,. co-I\, Dou~r.,.rt,, ror,,t,., (,rf'f'nl", JUD•••
•P•tc--,, Ptu 1 :Ii "l. 'ol •. ,,,1 "'""· 'i.,...1 f'r, T •l:l'.'.ll, ,.,,, l• r, T rov~,
j,15/J
5,083
1',.4
13. '>
6.9
J. I
2 ,6',1
2 ,l',4
L ____
I 94
2 ,fl 9
24"l
__
n,6
l ,O<)S)
4 79
6,4
2 .2
185
Jo11n,on, l•ncoln, N•O•son,
.. .,ct 1111 kfll,
11,, I"','
!".- ,,.\,,,.,!,.,.,. c.J., n \,,.~. /'rJv••~lc,r~I'>,.,, 111) v•il 1101 CO"'l)1lf'tl b,
l. "· <l I ,. ~. ~, "',.I " , ,: .. ~ .. J
10\ :.. 0• -· '"', J ,,,!),
I 9il- 19J• Cll"' I-' ,1 f'd ttr l llf'
\I Ir f '! t ~, ', ~I .,,l,,
!',nurrt-
r .. .,,..'"
.1873 to 3,646 in 1934, while the increase in the smaller tracts
under 50 acres was rapid. There was 1i ttle change in the number
of large tracts from 1873 to 1902 owing to the subdivision of
tracts of over 1,000 acres into farms of from 260 to 500 acres.
Table !>-ACR!:AGE IN PllOFIIIETMHIPS OF SPECIFIED SIZE IN 20 GEOQGIA PLANTATION COUNTIES,• 18/J-1934
Size of r,.-nprie'.onhip
---------------Tot~!
3. 735,002
ltl
'ICl'"PS
t(i
Kl'"f:-S
;u to
')U
O,C!"PS
~ to
IW to
kV
11~
"'ICI'"~ ..,
Le-:.s than
1() tC'
~, 7J
1,.?'JC
2~. (ft:(
10),27)
)bl, 78(1
~c•"!'c;
ll'J to
,'tiU to
::>1..,>1, ~c rP<.
:>W to l,\Jvl' >icr,..,;,
l.UL(J ·1crpc;
-
-
-
V'j OY!"'I'"
-
-
•
I
421 .JOO
)44,4bc
921.•,c,'
I
Percent
t-turTtie,..
Parc~nt
100.,l
4,146,579
100.0
0.2
0. 7
2.8
7,160
14,J85
1 )3.400
399,750
9.7
1713,160
17.2
11.2
19.9
24.7
5f9,H00
/71,o40
699,,oo
IJ.8
18.6
16.9
______ _j__I_.loc__.__tJJ7_ ~--31_._o_
d1,u,1i1o. 1utt1, Cl.'J,, Co•t"l<'I, oo"V"l!rt 1 , ~or,-,t11, Grl!•n•,
P41uld1ni;i, Pol•. 11.,1n-111"1, !lvl'llt"r, l,tlr.ot, lf'lfair, Troup.
so111rce:
1934
1873
Nurrber
O.J
J.2
9. 7
-~4_1_____lo._1__
JA\pl!r, 1O1\ri:son, l111colr,, 111.uli!ooo,
4nd IJd•ej,
•~•tori,
(aliu\f.-(1 on 0-11~,s ..,, T.,1,1 .. ~-
During the years 1922 to 1934, with a total increase in proprietorships of 1,455, there was a decrease of only 182 large
proprietorships, causing a slight reduction in the percentage
of tracts over 260 acres in size. In .1873, 37. 7 percent of the
proprietors held 260 acres or more. In 1934, only 16.3 percent
held such large tracts. In 1873, 75.6 percent of all acreage
Digitized by
Google
OWNERSHIP
19
was in tracts of 260 acres and over; in 1934, only 55.7 percent
was so concentrated (Table 51.
The averages for the State of Georgia combine Pied!nont counties, Coast Plain counties, and Black Belt counties, and therefore mask subregional differences. When the varying distribution of acreage in three States (North Carolina, Georgia, and
Mississippi I in recent years is examined I Appendix Table 61, it
appears that there was an actual increase from 1922 to 1934 in
the n11111ber of large tracts in the Atlantic Coast region, where
new lands were converted into agricultural use after the removal
of large bodies of timber. However, the simultaneous increase
in small tracts reduced the percentage of large tracts slightly.
There was considerable disintegration of large tracts in the
Mississippi Bluffs section. The land trend was almost static
in the Piedmont and Delta areas. While there was little reduction in the number of large proprietorships in the Black Belt,
there was a rapid increase in small proprietorships, indicating
that a number of small farms were ca"ed off very large tracts
without reducing the parent tracts below 260 acres. The total
effect in the 39 counties sampled in these 5 regions was a
decrease of only about a)() out of 8,400 tracts of 260 acres or
110re.
Multiple Olmership
An additional index to the concentration c,f ownership is
found in the number of landlords that hold non-contiguous tracts.
Such multiple ownership is not included in the foregoing figures
on size of proprietorships, as each tract is usually carried
separately on t.he tax books. In the present study 39 percent
of the landlords reported owning other farms with an average
of 2.9 other farms per multiple owner (Appendix Table 71.
It is not always possible to determine whether the holdings
of a single owner are returned in one total on the tax records
or whether separate tracts are listed separately. For this
reason the size of proprietorship statistics and the multiple
ownership statistics are merely supplementary measures of land
concentration. It is also impossible to obtain for past years
the proportion of plantation operators owning more than one
tract. For this reason the questions as to reconcentration or
continued disintegration of landholdings cannot be accurately
answered. The evidence indicates, however, that from 1922 to
1934 there was only a slight decrease in number of proprietorships of 260 acres or more listed for taxation. But in 1934
the ownership of more than one non-contiguous tract was a common
practice among the large operators. With this group of large
tenant operated holdings, plantation farming partakes of the
character of big business.
oig1 -z-d by
Google
20
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
In addition to concentration of ownership, many owners of
large acreages also operate additional rented land. This practice is indicated in the present study by the following distribution of plantation acreage: owned, 86 percent; additional
rented, 14 percent.
Another type of concentration has occurred during the depression because of foreclosures. Large banks, insurance companies,
and mortgage companies have taken over vast acreages not in contiguous tracts but in holdings scattered throughout the plantation belt. Appendix Table 8 indicates the holdings of these
corporations in a number of sample counties in the States of
North Carolina, Georgia, and Mississippi. This trend became
serious in the boll weevil period, being well under way in the
1920' s. The depression of the 1930 1 s added still more foreclosures so that by 1934 an appreciable number of tracts were
held by corporations.
The proportion which such corporation-held acreage formed of
the total of all land in farms was as high as 20 percent in some
counties. In the Georgia counties sampled the acreage held by
corporations was about 11 percent of the land in farms, in North
Carolina about 10 percent, and in Mississippi, 8.5 percent.
Method of Acquisition
Inefficiency in the operation of many plantations is not surprising when analysis is made of the means by which land was
acquired. Of the 631 planters in the sample for whom data were
available, 186 acquired their first tract by inheritance, 5 by
marriage, 21 by foreclosure, 357 by purchase, and 62 by renting
I Table 61.
fable &-METHOD CX Pl.ANTATION -CQUISI TION
!Cotton Plantation fn~rationJ
FI rst Tro!et
Method of Acqu i sit I on
Aoo1 l ional Tracts
Numoer 4
Percent
Numoer
Total planldtions
631
100.0
220
Purch11se,
357
186
5
21
62
56.6
29.~
O.B
3. 3
9.8
6•
Inheritance
IMrriage
Forec l osur"
Rent i ng
Contl i nation
-- -
-
9
-I
Percent
--100.0
29.1
•.1
-
o••
u
..Q.O
102
46.4
Over a third of the plantations surveyed contained tracts
no~ in the original unit. The great majority of these additional
tracts were bought or rented, or acquired by a combination of
these two methods.
The date of acquisition of holdings indicates a considerable
turnover in plantation ownership. Only 21 percent of the acreage
Digitized by
Google
OWNERSHIP
21
surveyed bad been acquired before 1910 and hence held at least
25 years. Forty-one percent had been acquired since 1925 and
held less than 10 years and 21 percent had been held less than
5 years (Appendix Table 9).
ABSENTEE OWNERSHIP
The final stage in the decline of a plantation before its
actual disintegration is when ownership is transferred to an
absentee landlord. Foreclosure, inheritance, and speculative
purchase often place the ownership of large tracts 2 in the hands
of persons who are inexperienced in farming or occupied with
other interests. Widows, other heirs, bankers, lawyers, merchants, and corporations become owners of plantations, but are
unable to supervise their operation.
It is obvious that there are varying degrees to which a nonresident owner 1112ty be considered an absentee. He 111ay hire an
overseer to reside on and supervise the plantation, in which
case the overseer, as agent of the owner, may be considered the
resident operator. Overseer-operated plantations have been
classified in this study with those of resident landlords. Also,
landowners live at Tarying distances frOIII their property and
are restricted in varying degrees in the number of visits they
can make to supervise operations. In order to allow so111ewhat
for this variation, landlords were classified in this study as
resident if they lived on the plantation, visited it daily, or
employed an overseer; as se111i-absentee if they lived within 10
miles and visited the place as much as once a week; and as absentee if they lived more than 10 miles from the plantation
and visited it less than once a week.
According to this classification 85 percent of the plantations were operated by resident landlords, 9 percent by semiabsentee landlords, and 6 percent by absentee landlords (Appendix Table 10). The proportion of absentees varied somewhat
in the various plantation areas, being highest in certain parts
of the Black Belt and the Lower Mississippi Delta. These are
also the areas in which a large proportion of the tenants are
renters (Appendix Table 31, since the rental contract provides
for very slight supervision by the landlord.
Another index of absenteeism is the extent to which landowners
are partially dependent on other occupations. In this study it
was found that 31 percent of all operators devoted more than
one-fourth of their time to occupations other than faming
(Table 71. This 31 percent is double the percentage of absentees
2it 1a probable that abHDtHtn ta ■ore pt-en11nt tn ownerahtp ot aau
tracts than tn 1ar11 atnce the tnY1at■ ent tn la~g• tracts t1naa to cr1at1
a prea1111r1 tor use.
Digitized by
Google
22
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
and semi-absentees combined, indicating that many landholders,
though living nearby and frequently visiting their plantations,
do not give their undivided attention to plantation operations.
A landowner when he has some other occupation is most often ll
merchant.
-
A•
1"',,..
"'~ ➔ '>'
t
17
rl 1 ,,
r·r"'"' P ., 1.... ir •
J' 1~ ~ I·,· : l \ 1.,
~• I , _ ~
,. • • ~
,,,..,
["l~r
.->
r ,
I
r
_).>1!,'1
'.' J' ~ ; ,;,
' ,.., t
( J
1t'lt1
~
<";.h ~ 1
1<;
r r' I
~
JC
r
Y,,,.,.,c:;s,rr1 'l'.' 1•,
"
li
"'r,,...-,,.t7r, ••'"'
t Ll
• ., , , "
tJ(fLJ_, Jt''
rA,..,t,·
""
1 ... JI .. ,.,
<ir 1 ol t,f' r
"'J
,,,,t,~,
~.,
"')',.
\ f ..
·t~,., :,r r vr~1, "' frOI" .~,,.., oi,,.r11tor d,r,11•d
,,,._ 1 " " , t ~ -, r ., 1 ! , .... •
'"'1, ~ r 1 t f,
',1!1 t·" "l",·t,..
• " 1 ,
l
.-'> H
,
\
,1111
,,,, ,..,.
"'
11,1 ,.,.4
_r,i,
It is the absentee landlord who, through ignorance, laxity
of supervision, or cupidity, most often allows the "mining" of
the land and the loss of the productive top soil through erosion.
It is on the absentee-owned plantations that fences and buildings most frequently fall into disrepair. It is these plantations which are least stable in a crisis. Since the owners of
these tracts /\re most often holding the land tor speculative or
sentimental reasons, they do not "back up" the credit of their
tenants to the same extent as do resident landlords. Hence,
when a break in prices or a disaster like the boll weevil occurs
and credit from merchants and bankers becomes tight, the tenants
on these places are the first to find themselves without resources and are often forced either to move to the city or to
become laborers or croppers on the more stable farms.
One of the former areas of extensive absenteeism which has
been closely studied in relation to the boll weevil disaster is
located in central Georgia between Macon, Atlanta, and Augusta. 5
According to these investigations the migration of tenants, loss
of cot ton production, and foreclosures on 1and and work stock
were far greater in this region, and the pace of recovery after
the boll weevil disorganization was slower than in other regions
3 Ra.per, 4. P"., f!L,() Blaclc Belt Counties:
Advent of the Boll lt'eevil in G.-eene
Chan£t!S in i!J.-al Life .sine, the
and Nacon Countie.s, Geo.-fia, unpub-
lished Ph. D. dtssertattoo, University or North Carolina. 1931, and Johnson, o. K. and Turner, Holfard 4., fhe Old Plantation Pied•ont Cotton Belt,
mimeographed report, Bureau or Agricultural Economics, 11130.
D1gt1zedoyGoogle
OWNERSHIP
23
with less absenteeism. Table 8 indicates the drastic reduction
in cotton production in counties with large absentee-owned plantations. Table 9 shows that the degree of reduction corresponded closely to the proportion of tenants.
Table 8--COTTON PROOUCTION UNDER TH( W[EVIL 1921-\928 AS PERCENT Of
COTTON PRODUCTION BEFORE. THE WE.EVIL 1905-\91'
(59 Lower Piecxnont. Geory1a 0 Counties)
4-.en,3~-~9~t914 _ _Y _ ~ - -
------r=--=---=-
!!'21
!922
1923
192'
Pe:~~=--=50
34
I
42
57
I
I
!~5
1m
~
~
~
___ _Jjf ______ -- -- --- _l -----
Jcin"so,., O. "· •nd furn~r. II011erd •·• tM O&d 1''4>1&.ah<M f~dw,u COUOll ••''• lvrirav of
&gric..,1111,.,1 lco~1c1,, lt]O, p, 1.
Sc.rce:
Thus there have been two counterbalancing tendencies in land
ownership. In the hands of efficient operators tracts have often
been COlllbined by purchase or lease. In the hands of absentee
operators or inefficient famers they have been loosely supervised, rented out in parcels, or actually broken up and sold in
Table ~IFTY-NINE COUNTIES Of TH£ COTTON--G~IN:; LONER PIEIMJ'fT IGEO!lGIA) GROUPED BY IMPORTAICE
Of SUNDIN:; R[NT, 1920, ANO HY DECREASE. I~ ARE.A IN CROPS BE.TWEE~ 1919 ANO 192'
I
.
Dec rease 1n Area tn Crops
i..t.een 1919 and !92'
- - - - - - - _________
Percent
•
1~ or I ess
21l - 'l9
__ ,o_•nd_"'""_________
So111rce:
I
1
_
-
Percentdge of Stand ,n\:I Renter.,• 3 mong Tenants
of Renter Stc1tu 5 ,n t9?i'J
-
-
5q or less
Colllt, es
12
5
1·t----
I
L
-
j
-
fiO - 79 _
--
an or mor~
l
Count ,es
•
1I\
j
1
__ l _
Count ,es - - -
10
11
.10,.n~ori, o. •· 111rid T"'r""'r· 110-1 rd •·, f,w OW , ~ .. c.it,011 /i.J•v"' C0Uo11 I, U, 811r~11u or
Aqr,cultur.o.l (conoa,c1, 1•10. ?, u.
f•ily-sized farms.
As pointed out in the first part of the
chapter, the size of tracts retained for taxation indicates
little net change in concentration since 1910.
NEGRO OWNERSHIP
ks noted in the first chapter, all Negroes wer" laborers
i•ediately after the Civil War and the emergence of a landowning class was usually throngh the intermediate step of tenancy.
This rise in status is reflected in Table 3 which shows 124,000
Nqro landowners in 1910 in the 7 cotton States. The total for
the whole South was over 200,000.
Digit .er! by
Google
24
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
As with white owners, the disorganized conditions in cotton
production from 1910 to 1930 caused a decline in number of Negro
owners and proportion of Negro farms operated by owners. However, since both white owners and Negro owners decreased, the
rcttio of Negro to white owners was only slightly changed, 19
percent of the owners being Negro in 1910 and 18 percent in
1930 (Table 31.
As a rule, Negroes have been restricted in their opportunity
to purchase land to the more undesirable sections. Just as white
neighborhoods are recognized in cities so there are rural areas
where Negro owners are not welcomed and white owners are reluctant to sell to Negroes. Thus Negro proprietorships have been
acquired in outlying sections, on back roads, andonthe poorer
land.•
Few of tteNegro proprietorships are of plantation size. The
percentage of Negro landholdings in the various sized groups in
Taole 10--Slll Of Pll()ffiJ[IORSHIPS BY COLOII Of OW<[R IN 2• GEORGIA COONTl[S, 1~3•
Size of Proprietor~f'l•P
Total
'Ahite
Negro
lUU
100
Less th~n 100 111cres
'7
100 to 260 r1cres
260 .c re~ -'!Ind OY er
,.
J•
22
19
213 •ere,
71
'ICfe-5
Georgia& in 1934 as contrasted with white holdings is shown in
Table 10; 74 percent of the Negroes owned less than 100 acres.,
22 percent owned between 100 and 260 acres and only 4 percent
owned 260 acres or more. It appears, therefore, that a negligible proportion of Negro landowners are in the "planter" class.
It is to be expected that Negro proprietorships would average
much smaller than white, since the white proprietorships were
large to begin with and Negroes owned no land in 1865. However,
Negro proprietorships, like white, have been shrinking in size,
owing to the faster increase in the number of small than of
large holdings. e The average Negro holding in the Georgia counties in 1934 was 71 acres. The average white holding was 213
acres !Table lOJ.
•Raper, A. r., op. cit.
6
oeorg1a ts one or the rew States where property holdings are segregated
1>7 color.
8
eanks, E. 11., op. cu.
Dig t,zed oy
Google
Chapter
m
PUKTATIOM OROABIZATION AND IUIAGEONT
The visitor to well preserved ante bellua plantations is
iapressed with the variety of operations which were carried on
and the division of labor practiced. The plantation included
not only fields and barns but also spinning rooms, slaughter.
and storage houses, gins, grist mills, and other minor processing units. The plantation of today is not so nearly self-sufficing as were these old enterprises, but on large holdings there
is still a marted division of labor even though production is
IIC>re centered about the cash crop.
SIZE OF OPERATION
The very large plantations capable of a high degree of organization are gradually disappearing (Appendix Table 6>. Table ll,
classifying the plantations by crop acres, and Table 12, giving
the naaber of resident families, indicate the small proportion
of very large plantations. Only slightly over a tenth (69) of
the plantations sampled in tfiis study had 800or more crop acres
and abOut the sue number ( 63) had 30 or ■ore resident families.
Purtheraore, ~5 of the 63 plantations with 30 or more families
were concentrated in four areas-the Upper Delta, Red River, and
Arkansas River areas, and the adjacent Bluffs section. In the
Opper Piedaont and Muscle Shoals regions, about 90 percent of
the plantations had less than 400 crop acres and less than 10
teaant :faailies, and in the Black Belt and Coast Plain sections
about three-fourths of the plantations had 10 tenants or less.
The defi4ition of a plantation to include such a large proportion of Sllall and medium-sized operations will not appeal
to 90lle who associate the word plantation with very large operations. Most descriptions have emphasized large-scale operations, both because these large operations are striking and
because it is on these highly organized places for the most
part·that detailed records are obtainable. However, the distributions of the plantations in the special cen::.us enwneration
of 19]0 and of the sample of typical plantation areas in this
study indicate that emphasis on such large-scale operations does
not depict the true situation.
As in a 111anufacturing plant, the size o! a plantation is the
chief determinant of the degree o! organization. A plantation
25
oig1 -z-d by
Google
26
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
with as much as 800 crop acres and 25 to 30 families is too hrge
for the management and supervision of one man !\lone and functions
must be delegated to managers, l'I.Ssistants, overseers, and riders.
Such delegation of functions, however, represents merely a difference in degree of specialization and not an essential modific11tion in the maMgerial function. The landlord or plantation
operator has certain duties upon which the success of the operation depends and these duties are the same whether heperforns
them in person or whether he delegates them to subordinates.
These duties include cropphnning, finance of operations, 111anagement of labor and anima l power, supervision of cultivation
and harvest, marketing, and management of such processing enterprises as may be adjuncts to the plantation, such as cOffllllissary,
gin, grist mill, blacksmith's shop, etc. In some instances the
landlord also gives considerable aid in social and community
problems of tenants, such as health, education, and religious
life.
fable 11~11£S IN CROPS ON Pl.ANTUI0NS , BY AR{~. 193•
{Cotton Planta ti on [n u,..rat i on)
-- - - - - - - -- ----
To ta l
fo t al
To l ol
Pi a~
t a t io,, s
Acr.-,
• OO
-
600- 800600
BOO 1 ,000
->-81
29
•1
•OO-
ZH
113
56
16, 173
8 . 459
30.Al l
l~ . *I
7• ,81)
29C
211
115
20
Z2
•6
5?
13
25
15
3
H
20
•1
21
13
10. 13 7
• , 943
15, 6,l()
17 , 71,9
1• .~~
2R. 9' I
207
275
~Zl
37~
5)1
32
15
-
ll
7
21
8
11
I
I
,o
~lac• II.I t !Bib
133
LQlll!e r ~lu
50
12
,,.
30
47
za
• c roppe r 11'1od ot,.,., •"'•' •
Dt, ,., , , •• iorit.,.
ZOO~
3~
Uo pe r ~ lta
Mi ssis~i pp i Al u
than
zoo
--
Z•8. 5B
11?
'19
V... scl e Sho 1l ~
In te r i or Pl a i n
Ut1 on
"'111ber of Pl11ntations • ith Specified Acres in CroPS
less
6'6
4t lant ic Co ut Pl ai n
Upper Piedffon t
81ac • Rolt l •I•
i n f.r?p S
l e res
i n Crops
per PI An-
, . ,. .,,,
n
156
56 3
O'lA
•l
)5
9
11
2
5
1
-
7
5
3
10
-
6
-
•3
1,000-
1.100 and
I ,ZOO
""·'
15
25
-
-
I
I
17
10
2
-
-
6
~
3
-I
8
-
I
-3
l
2
3
8
-
-
I
3
2
2
-
)
. . j o r11 , .
The enterprises typically engaged in on a very large plantation are shown in Figure 10.
LANDLORD MANAGERIAL FUNCTIONS
The crop planning activities of the landlord are not so important on a cash crop plantation as they would be under diversified fanning, but there is still the problem of how much to
plant of the two major crops, cotton and corn, as a plantation
total and as subdivided among the various ten an ts. Th is problem
requires a knowledge of the hmily size and work habits of each
individual tenant and of the chancter of the land to be 11ssigned each tenant.
Digitized by
Google
FIG.1O- ORGANIZATION
OF 'ENTERPRISES ON THE LARGE AND CLOSELY SUPERVISED PLANTATION
PLANTATION
(Owner or General Manager)
"'ti
t""
►
..,
..,
'Z
PURC HA S I NG
(O wner or Mon oger)
MARKETING
( Owner or Monoger)
PLA NTATION
ENT ERPRISES
CO N NECTION
WITH CRED IT
IN ST ITU TI ONS
(O wn er)
►
ACCOU NTING
(Bookkeeper )
0
'Z
0
lltl
C')
STORE OR
COMM ISSARY
( Store or For m Mgr)
FARM CROPS
( Form MQr. )
-
8
►
:z:
ts
►
>-:i
0
'Z
TE NA NT FAR MS
(Overseers)
WAG E FARM
( Oversee r)
►
'Z
C
Cl
X
co·
~-
Ass,stont
i
Ri der
O"
'<:
C;
I
0
arv
,--
I
20 to 30
Wa g~ Hands
'3 Ia c ksm , 1h
a
Garage
I
I
II I
I I I
Tracto r
Jobs
A ssis t a nt
Rid er
Ass1s tcn1
Rid er
Ass1ston t
Rider
20 lo 30
20 lo 30
Croppers
Cr0ppe r s
►
:z:
►
t"3
C')
X
20 ,o 30
Woge Hands
I I
t"3
:z:
>-:l
Gr ,st M ill
AF-20I6 , W P A
~
28
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
The task of financing operations is more fully discussed in
chapter V. Appendix Tablell indicates,bowever, that the planter's average investment of fixed capital, as estiaated by representat ive planters, amounts to $2.8, 694 per plan tat ion Iexcluding
operator's residence, gins, commissaries, and other non-agricultural equipment I. The planter must also be continually on
guard against deterioration of his drains, terraces, buildings,
fences, and implements, and must be in a position to aake repairs and replacements.
In addition to this outlay of fixed capital, the planter 1111st
be financially able to provide the working capital. Here the
planter differs fr0111 the manufacturer. The well organized industrial enterprise has a fairly continuous outflow of working
capital, and fairly continuous inflow of money fr0111 sales. -The
outflow of the plantation, however, begins in the early spring
and there is comparatively little inc0111e until fall unless soae
of the previous year's crops have been held for sale. Thus,
the planter must provide working capital without reilllburseaent
for the major portion of the year, since the cropper or share
tenant furnishes neither fixed nor working capital unless be
owns his mule and plows. Theoretically the tenant furnishes
his share of the seeds and fertilizer but in practice the landlord purchases the whole amount in advance and is reilllbursed
at the end of the season from the tenant's share of the crop.
Tobie 12-11!:SIOE~T FAMILIES" OH PJ.AMTlTJOl<S, BY All[AS, 193•
(Cotton Plantation Enumer-,tionl
-,-- - -
Tot~ I
Plantat ,ans
Area
HU"lber
Total:
Percent
Atlantic Co.ut Plain
Upper Pi edrN:,n t
Black Belt I• 1•
!I ock R,,J t (Bl C
Uooer Delu
----
10-15
1'>-20
20-25
!OB
16. 7
•0
7,.
40
6. 2
29
63
•• 5
9.8
~6
•o
II
J
17
12
79
3
2
-
-
3
I
AO
112
36
99
28
lo-.er Del ta
~
n
Muscle Shoals
Interior Plain
22
~
19
Is
'1
23
h&r11h.
----
358
55.•
'>-10
133
8 1nchde1 ••9e
-
6•6
100.0
8l
76
Mississippi Bluffs
Red R1.,,er
Arkansas River
--------
N~c,er of PlanUt1ons 111111th Spec.1f,e,c, Number
of Resident FNl'li I •e'i
;ii
2,
7
I
--
11
3
7
6
1
2
2'>-30 10
-
&, over
-
I
4
-
s
3
15
2
17
I
I
I5
3•
4
5
l
2
-
-
2
t
4
5
5
5
~
6
-
-
•I
•
-
•
5
5
11
Total
Resident
Fan1lies
---
Res i aent
Fami 1 its
•••
Planution
9,215
U.3
•81
8.6
6.6
8.2
8.5
265
9!S
8'3
3,115
23.•
573
UB
'19
1':o
~·
725
1,176
II. 5
6. 7
15.•
19.8
,o.6
cropper,. Sfl&r• len,111t1. &nd renters (c&V! and ~ta.nd,ntl
bcropper .,.d ol"•r share tena,,t ■a,or1ty.
C1en1er ••Jori,,.
The planter is in the position of the type of 11&Dlffacturer who
pays wages for a number of months in advance of any in.c011e ftoa
sales. These payments are in the form of subsistence advances
to tenants who must be fed and clothed on credit, the landlord
to be reilllbursed for these advances, and for his advances ia
Digitzed by
Google
PLANTATION ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
29
seeds and fertjlizer, when crops are sold. Theoretically, the
tenant's inc011e is a portion of the crop, collectible when the
crop is marketed. In practice, the tenant collects this inc011e
in advance at the rate of fro■ S5 to SOO per month, these subsistence advances aaounti111 to an average of about Sl, 200 per
plantation lTable 23, p. 63J. At the beginnin1 of the year,
therefore, the average landlord aust have, or be able to borrow,
for subsistence advances and crop expenditures (Appendix Table
12J, about $4,700 for total current operations.
This practjce of subsistence advances is one of the chief
trouble spots for the landlord. Tenants are given to understand
at the beginning of the season that they are to have an advance
of $5.00, $7.50, Sl0.00, $15.00, or $20.00 per 1110nth, depending upon how ■uch the landlord feels he will be sate in advancing. laprovident families will use up their advance in the
first 2 weeks of the ■onth and try to overdraw during tbe
last 2 weeks. The landlord must have continually in ■ ind tbe
needs of the faaily, the past record for "pa,ing out", and tbe
current condition of the tenant •s crop in 11aking decisio11s as
to tbe e11:te!lt of overdraft to allow. Vi th a certain class of
tnaats the advaace practice precipitates a continual. stnagele,
the tenant atte■pthc to get everythinr he can, the landlord
atteaptinr to advaace as little as he can to teep the teaant at
wort.
Mana,e■ent of crops, labor, and animal power ls tbe coacern of the landlonl tllroachoat the spring and sa•er. The
plantation day us11all7 begins about sunrise and continues until
d■ st.
The efficteat landlord is in the field when tbe bell
calls the tenMts to wort and v-i sits each task at least oace
a daJ.
So■e
plantatiows keep tbe work ani ■al.s in a central ban and
oat as needed. Others regularly allot one or two
■al" to each tenant.
nae wort ani11alson the plantatioas covered in this study avera,ed about one per resident faaily or
14 per plantation. This c011stit11tes a considerable ite■ of tile
landlonl's invest■eat vtitch mast be constantly sateruarded froa
deterioration through OYerworlt, disea.c;e, or anderfeedinc.
Crop ■anageaeat al.so involves plans for fertilization and
iasect control, frequeney and t7pe of cultivation, and tiae of
lla"estin1. Efficieney in all these matters rests far ■ore on
tile judpent of the landlonl than on that of the tenant.
The ~artetinc function is also alllost entirely in the hands
of the landlonl, except in tbe case of renters' crops. 8&Yin(
financed the operati011 h tbe spring and su•er, the landlord
controls the saleof the crop and division of the proceeds. Bis
decision as to vtletber to sell iaediatel:, or to hold oftea
■ates a difference of several cents per pound on both Us ud
tile tenant's share of tile crop.
assirn
the■
Digitized by
Google
30
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
COMMISSARY AND MANAGER'S HOME ON
LARGE PLANTATION IN MISSISSIPPI
Digitized by
Google
PLANTATION ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
31
NON-AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES
It is beyonrl the scope of this study to comment in detail
on the non-aeri c11l t1Jral enterprises of the lar(!er plantations,
such as gins, shops, mills, and commissaries. These are merely
arl,iuncts to the production anrt marketing of the cash c:rop and
as such are op~rated only by part of the plantations.
The commissary is one of the most criticized plantation features but may, if fairly administered, be of advantaee to the
tenant. Usually the commissary is introduced by the operator
so that he, rather than the supply merchant, may control the
expenditures for subsistence and keep these amounts within the
lin!its of the tenant's ability to produce. The landlord also
gets the advantage of wholesale prices with rliscounts if he is
able to finance purchases in cash.
The advantage, ordisarlvantage, of this practice to the tenant depenrls entirely upon the extent to which the lan<llord passes
the economies of wholesale buying on to the purchaser and the
extent to whic:h the landlord merely substitutes himself for the
exploitative 1"erchant. Many examples of both types could be
produced. In the present study more than a fourth of the plantations had commissaries, 15 percent having commissaries whose
use by the tenants was compulsory and 11 percent commissaries
whose use was optional (Appendix Table 131.
For perfominr. these varied services, the average landlord
makes little more than the cost would be of hiring managers and
overseerstodo them. Calculated on the basis of salaries paid
in 1920 on large plantations, Brannen concluded that the cost
of hired supervision was Sl.80 per acre 1 on cotton plantati'ons.
According to the present study the landlord profit (after deducting interest on his capital) averaged only $2.01 per crop acre. 2
SOCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Having established and perpetuated a paternalistic relation
to tenants and having taken the responsibility for close supervision not only of agricultural operations but also of family
expenditures, the landlord is also often called upon for services
of a social nature, for the large plantaT.ion is a social as well
as an economic organism and the matrix of a number of plantations
often con st i tu tes or dominates the larger unit of civil government in the locality.
Among efficient landlords, tenant health is one of the major
considerations anrl doctors' bills are paid by the landlord and
1erannen, C. o., Relation of Land rmu~e to Plantation o~ianizatiOt1, 0. 8.
Depart•ent or Agriculture, Bulletin 12aU, pp. 17-lU.
2
See chapter VI.
Digitized by
Google
32
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
charged against the tenant crop. Those te11ants who have a landlord who will "stand for" their bills are far 111ore likely to get
physicians• services than are the general run of tenants. On
some plantations socialized medicine is approximated. The landlord pays a flat rate to a doctor who agrees to sene all the
tenants for a year, and this charge is distributed on a per visit
basis. On plantations where medical contributions or advances
are made by the management these average about $40 per plantation !Appendix Table 14-AI.
Landlords and 1111\Dagers are also expected to "stand for" their
tenants in minor legal difficulties such as may grow out of
gNnbling gMtes, altercations, and traffic infractions.
This
function is, of course, not exercised indiscriminately. A good
worker will, in all probability, be "gotten off" and a drone
left in the hands of the law. In past decades, the sheriff
seldom went on large plantations, minor discipline being one
of the manager's undisputed prerogatives. The broad leather
strap was the principal instrument of discipline. These practices of plantation discipline have passed, but the landlord
assumes responsibility for such tenants as are arrested for
minor offenses, especially during the busy se/\Son. In the present study 11 percent of the landlords had, in the year 1934,
acted as parole sponsor for tenants and 21 percent had paid
fines !Appendix Table 14-B1.
Use of plantation animals for social or personal purposes
is also one of the plantation contributions. Three-fourths of
the plantations studied allowed the use of their animals for
trips to town and on Sundays, but of these more than one-fourth
did not allow such use as often as once a month. Thus, a large
proportion of the tenants who did not own work animals either
had no means of transportation or had such means available less
than once a month !Appendix Table 14-B1.
Landlords are also frequently expected to contribute to plllntat ion social life through aid to churches, schools, and entertainments. The present study revealed that direct contributions
to schools were relatively small although the use of land for
school buildings was frequently permitted. Planters inteniewed
reported an averace annual contribution to tenants' ·churches of
approximately $13 .ud to ten/\ots' entertainments of $6 !Appendix
Table 14-Al. In addition, it goes without saying that plantation waters are open to tenants' fishing, and plantation rabbits
and quail are theirs for the taking. Usually the landlord's
contribution of supplies !or entertainments such as fish fries,
barbecues, and dances is more substantial than his cash contribution.
The contribution of the landlord to plantation efficiency
may be summarized as that of the pocketbook and brain.
The
contribution of the tenant is largely that of supenised brawn.
Dig 112ed y
Goos IC
PLANTATION ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
33
Landlords vary widely in their capability of performing these
functions efficiently. Some prefer to stay i~ town rather than
ride over their land. Others work very energetically at their
job, thereby contributing matet"ially to their own fortune and
to that of their tenants. It is clear that the efficient landlord is not only a capitalist, but also an agronomist, a diplomat, a capable manager, and occasionally a veterinarian and
social arbiter.
Tenants have traditionally depended on landlords for services
such as those described in this chapter and any plan for replacing the plantation organization with other forms of tenure or
small ownership must take into consideration the reality of the
11a11agerial function and the practical necessity for supervision
of a plantation. It 111nst either provide a similar management
until tenants outgrow its need or, through intensive education,
train the tenants to perform these duties efficiently.
DigtizedbyGoogle
DigtizedbyGoogle
Chapter IV
THE ONE-CROP SYSTEM
Although the plantation is excessively devoted to the production of money crops it must also furnish fuel for the tenants
and feed for the work animals. Hence most tracts include woodland and pasture as well as crop land for feed purposes. Also,
11any plantations, especially since the A.A.A. crop reduction
progra111, contain bodies of idle or fallow land. Each plantation has a reserve of land which can be brought into cultivation
or left idle according to price prospects. This is one of the
reasons why cotton production fluctuates so violently.
LAND USE IN PLANTATIONS
The land distribution in the plantations studied differs
from that of the total farm land in the plantation States in
T•ble B-U';f
or ll•n IN fi,fi pt ANTATION:; AND OF TOTAL LANO '"FA/ll.C<;
IN 51:V[N 50UfH[AST[RN C0TTON ',TATES,• 1o34
P~rc~nt Di~tr 1bul ion
••1•a.-. ari...nt.••• Gt-or9i•. lo-1•••-• •••1o11o11p,,, ■ortl'I Co'lrol•ft91. and Soulfl c,.rol1N..
S.•rc~: tot1011 rlanta110• • .,,...,.11on and 1•"•4 IC•1•1 C•,u-, of A1r1c•ll•r•. JNO,
that the plantations have a considerably higher percentage of
crop land and a correspondingly lower percentage of land in
woods and pasture (Table 131.
The percentage of cropland in the total acreage was highest
in the plantations of the Upper Delta of the Mississippi and
the bottom and bluff land of its tributaries, where it amounted
to more than half the total acreage.
In the Upper Piedmont section crop land was just under 50
percent of the total. The sections of high absentee ownership
IBlack Belt renter counties and Lower Delta) show a low proportion of their land in crops and a. relativelyhighproportion in
woods and pasture !Appendix Tahle 151.
35
,,
36
LANDLORD ANO TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
The typical plantation of this inquiry is 907 acres in extent
with 385 acres in crops, 214 in woods, 162 in pasture, 63 idle,
and 83 waste (Appendix Table 151. This average of 907 total
acres is high, owing to the effect of the comparatively large
number of plantations of 1,500 acres or more. Fifty percent of
the tracts are between 250 and 750 acres in size (Table 141.
After the landlord has determined the number of families he
can finance and the acreage which he can conveniently a.nd economically plant to cotton, he allows the balance of his land to
grow up to woods and so-called pasture if it is not too severely eroded. A considerable part of the idle land and some of
the woods and pasture could, if necessary, be converted to additional crop acreage.
T•ble U-4Cll!:S OP[AATED" ON Pl4NT4TJONS, 1~3C
(Cotton Plisnldl1on [nl.lfflerat• cril
100.0
Les5 than
l !>O .. c rpc;.
'.:>UO !C res
750 acres
71
1'9
!LO
26.B
Z,. I
750 to l, UUU <1cr~s
70
10.8
1. 000 to l,L~U .1cre'i
l .t ~Q to l,~UU 'ICl'"PS
55
35
93
5.C
1,.,
250 to
!,()()
to
l. ~U .'lC res arid ovrr
173
8.5
CROP ACREAGE PER FAMILY
llnder the present system of cotton-corn farming, plantation
land is used more intensively than land in most other sections
of the country. The average of 25 crop acres perfamil:,• IAppendix Table 161 is far less than that in the Middle West or Far
West but larger than in the self-sufficing farm regions such as
the Appalachians. It is also a larger acreage per family than
in the trucking and high price crop specialty regions.
Croppers who specialize in cot ton show an average of 20 acres
in crops, one-fifth less than the average crop acreage for all
plant.ation families. Other share tenants and renters, who produce more food and feed for home use, average 25 acres, while
wage hand families, cul ti vat ing the unshared landlord crop, average 45 acres (Appendix Table 161.
It is also apparent that the sections speciali zing most heavily in cotton lthe Delta and the Arkansas River bottom) assign
smaller acreages per family, the average cropper acreage in the
Upper Delta being 17, in the Lower Delta 15, and in the Arkansas River valley, 14 per family. That these smaller cropper
acreages are often accompanied cylarger acreages per·wage hand
Dig t1ze by
Google
THE ONE-CROP SYSTEM
37
f•ily indicates a different plantation organization in these
sections. Here the croppers concentrate almost entirely on
cotton and the food and feed crops are grown by the landlord
with wage labor.
The cropping arrangement of the Cotton South is usually
spoken of as the one-crop system but it is in fact a two-crop
systea, cotton for the cash crop and corn for food and animal
feed. Al.aost as much acreage is planted to corn as to cotton,
but corn is a minor item in the cash transactions of the farm,
since it is produced largely for home use. In fact, many plantations do not plant enough corn to feed the work animals. On
the plantations studied, 4percent of the total expenditure was
for feed al though feed could easily have been gt own t Appendix
Table 12).
Honey-crop farming was highly developed on the large plantations of the South by the close of the Civil War, but in the
subsequent expansion of the deaand for cotton this system fastened its hold even more firmly on the section. The better
managed slave plantations produced in addition to cotton, considerable quantities of foodstuffs, many slaves being required
to cultivate gardens of their own. But plantations have become
less self-sufficing during recent decades. Total cotton acreage
in the United States expanded from 12 million acres in 1875 to
45 million in 1930wbile livestock and food production suffered
a relative decline. 1
The generation after the Civil War grew up with little knowledge of farming except the minimum necessary for growing money
crops. Gardens largely disllI)peared and the habits of caring
for livestock were often lost. The South, though a section
suited by soil and climate to the culture of a great variety
of food crops, became a heavy purchaser of foods from other sections. Though a section with vast areas suited to stock production, it became dependcn t for its mules and dairy products
upon famers elsewhere. The tenant, the landlord, the merchant,
and the banker all conspired, because of short-sighted selfinterest, to expand the money crop, with the result that the
South depleted the fertility of vast tracts and allowed them to
erode. It became enmeshed in a vicious tenant system, :Uld dependent upon ruinous credit machinery.
The plantations studied were selected from cotton counties, 2
but manifested a wide range in proportion of crop acreage planted to cotton. A few had less than a) percent of their acreage
in cotton in 1934 and a few had more than 70 percent of their
acreage in cotton, but the great majority operating under the
1rearboob, u. s. Depart■1nt or Agriculture.
21 cotton count7 wu d1t1n1d aa a county ln wtitcb 40 percent or ■ore or the
1roaa tar■ lncoa1 was tro■ cotton.
DI I
zedbyGooglc
38
LANDLORD AND TBNANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
crop reduction progr• devoted froa ao to 60 percent of their
acreage to cotton I Appendh: Table 351. 1
TRINDS IN COTTON CULTURE
While the increase in cotton acreage was fl'OII 12 to 4~ ■ il
lion acres in 55 years and the production increase was fl'OII ~
to 15 ■ ill ion bales, these increases were not uniformly distributed." Practically all cotton was concentrated in the old
Southeast in 1870, but b;y the turn of the century a third of
the acreage was in the two States of Texas and Oklahoma and by
1930 half the acreage was in these two States. The trme11doas
relative loss of the old Southeast is shown if the heaYJ cotto■
producing States are divided into three groups and the avera,e
acreage of the years 1Q06-1910 and 1926-1930 compared ( Table l~l.
Table 15-4V[RA-l: IICROC,£ IN COfTON, BY GROOPS ~ STlT[5, 19((,-1910 4NO 192&-1930
- ~ - - - - ----------
- -
----- -----=---=---=---=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-=
Acr~s !in thousands}
190!>-1910
192&--1930
n.~1
llil•ssic;.,,,ipp,, 4rk1n-.=..-;, "Ind Louisiana
9,'.>10
ll1b"""', (",corgi-,. r.orth CaroliM, and South Carolina
11,476
P.,rcent Change
♦
99
+ 40
-
;
The reduction in the Southeast and shift to the Southwest
largely resulted from boll weevil damage in the Southeast. The
incidence of heavy damage b;y the boll weevil was not a sudden
catastrophe affecting the whole South simultaneously or equally.
Rather it was a wave whose crest moved fr011 West to East at fl'OII
40 to 160 miles per year. The effect of the weevil was varied
in the States ahead of its march, in the States recently invaded,
and in the States where its maximum dama,ae was past.
The passage of the weevil in Texas and Oklahoma occurred before the great expansion of acreage in these States, and wile■
the expansion took place it more than c011pensated for the wee,-il
d•age. From these States eastward, however, the process was
as follows:
Ahead of the weevil, States received price benefits fl'OII the
curtailed crop of their western neighbors and this led to i ■creases in acreage and intensified fertilization. Bence, the
wee-,-il was preceded b;y increased production and increased Yalae
of cotton crops.
The desire to plant •one 111ore big crop" led faraers to coatinue past the danger point with the result that in the first
8see cbapter TI.
6 •Stattatlca or cotton•, 1•orboob,
u. e.
Depu-t111l!t er .11r1cu1t11n.
Dig 11.ed IJy
Goos le
THE ONE-CROP SYSTEM
39
year of heayY infestation crops upon which heavy expenditures
had been made were destroyed. This loss c0111pletely disorganized
credit, ruined tenants and landlords alike, and resulted in
greatly curtailed acreage, increase in share-cropping, decrease
in ownership and cash renting, and reduction of credits. After
the period of heavy damage there was a gradual climb upward as
farmers learned to cultivate cotton under weevil conditions,
recouped their losses, and diversified to a greater extent.
The resultant changes in /11.Creage, production, value, and tenanc1 as they appear in the census statistics depend upon which
stage in this cycle the State happened to be in at the time of
the enumeration.
.
It 1910 is taken as a base line, it is found that by that
date the weevil had crossed the Mississippi River hardly in sufficient numbers to be felt. Louisiana and Arkansas were recovering and production was expanding in AlabMta, Mississippi,
Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Soon after 1910,
production in Mississippi fell off sharply. In the period 19151920 Alabaaa had its big drop in production and Georgia began
to decline. From 1920 to 1930 Georgia and South Carolina were
the great sufferers with some damage in North Carolina while
Mississippi and Alabua recOYered completely and Louisiana,
Arkansas, Texas, and Oklah0111a continued to forge ahead.
From 1923 the acreage in cotton began a steadJ march upward, reaching a new high of 47 million acres 3 years later in
1926. The average for 1921-1925 W&9 over 37,5 million acres;
for 1926-1930 it was 44,5 million acres. 6 This phenomenal increase in acreage was the result of two factors. The expansion
into the level lands of the southwestern prairies, high plains,
and red plains, given its first impetus by the boll weevil, continued at an increasing rate. At the same time richer areas
in the Southeast were recovering froa 1925-1932 some of the
ground lost froa 1920 to 1924, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina had failed to reach their maximum acreage before weevil
infestation. Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, on the other
hand, continued to expand their acreage after 1923, It is notable that the northern border States, fennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia, reached their greatest acreage in the period of greatest weevil damage in 1923-1924 and their acreage
has receded with the recovery of other areas.
The extent of the disorganization of cotton production prior
to 1930 was largely a !unction not of· production alone but of
the value of the crop. Although Mississippi production declined
sharplJ !r011 1910 to 1920, rises in price meant an actual increase in the value of the crop. Mississippi was, therefore,
6 1.G~boob,
u. a.
DepartHnt
or
.tar1cu1tur1.
Dig tized by
Google
40
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
only temporarily disturbed by the weevil. To a lesser extent
the same condition was true in Alabama. By the time of the
short crops in Georgia and South Carolina, however, the increase
in production to the westward and the financial difficulties
of the early l920's caused short crops and low prices to coincide, with the result that the disorganization in these two
States from 1910 to 1925 was drastic. This was not registered
to any marked extent in the 1920 Census but showed up sharply
in the 1930 enumeration.
Thus, even before the crash of 1929, parts of the Old South,
especially of the Southeast, were sharply depressed. This depression in cotton had already resulted in a relative decline
in land ownership and loss of work stock by tenants. FrOIII 1915
to 1928-1929 hundreds of thousands of Negro tenants and some
white tenants movedoutof cotton counties to industrial cities.
Wher further disorganization of prices and finances occurred in
1928-1929 hundreds of additional planters had to discontinue
operations and thousands of tenants who had no one to feed them
were forced out of agriculture. 6
The accumulated overproduction of the early 1930' s may, therefore, be described as the result of the efforts of the States
east of the Mississippi to regain their former place in the cotton picture while the States west of the Mississippi continued
to expand their acreage.
The very large crop of 16 million bales in 1931 was added
to a carry-over of 10 million bales from previous crops. This
supply of 26 million bales was more than twice the usual annual
consumption requirements. At the sa.~e time world market losses
were restricting exports and domestic consumption w;u-, falling
off.
The result was that in 1932 the price of the staple fell to
a new low for recent years of six cents per pound. This was
materially below the cost of production for most famers and
many marginal producers were forced into-bankruptcy.
The relatively more frequent and more violent depressions
in cotton price than in the prices of agricultnral commodities
as a whole account for the greater financial difficulties of
the South as compared with other agricultural areas. Fraa Appendix Table 17 it is apparent that there was a violent depression in cotton in 1926 and 1927 which hardly affected other
commodities. The ratio of cotton price to cost of living fell
from 94 in 1929 to 44 in 1932, while the general index of agricultural cornmodi ties fell only from 95 to 61, a decline of more
than 50 percent for cotton in comparison with about 35 percent
for all crops !Appendix Table 17 and Figure 111.
6 See chapters V and X.
C1g1tzed by
Google
41
THI ONB-CROP SYSTEM
The relative severity of the depression in the cotton States
aad in the rural United States as a whole is also indicated by
the change in net time and deu.nd deposits of banks in towns of
less than 15.000 population (Appendix Table 18 and Figure 121.
Taking 1929 deposits as 100 percent, the lowest level for all
rural banks was 52 percent in 1934 while the lowest level for
southeastern banks was 31 percent in 1933. The beginning of
recovery in the South was a year ahead of that in the rest of
the Nation. From the low point of 31 percent in 1933 the index
of cotton States' deposits climbed to38 in lQM and 53 in 1935,
while the low point tor the whole United States was in 1034
with an upturn in 1935. From January 1934 to January 1935 the
index aoved up tro111 52 to 62.
The A.A.A. years, 1933, 1934, and 1935, brought a uterial
iaproveaeat in the condition of the cotton taraer. Aside tr011
aay effect of the paraent of rental benefits, the iaproveaent
in price revolutionized the position of the grower. This is
apparent fro• the followiq c011parisoa of the receipts of a
producer of 10 bales in 1932 with bis receipts after reducing
bis output 40 percent in 1035 in accordance with A.A.A. require~nts.
Price per Pound
Value per Bola
Total Value
10
6'
12'
s,i
$60
$300
5
Year
Number of Bo las
1932
1935
S360
Not only was his gross income 44 percent higher but bis expenses were less in producing the six bales and his idle land
was rented by the government.
JlitrUUaer CGaa1apt1on
Cotton and corn, the 111&instays of the plantation, are soilexhausting crops and have been cultivated on plan tat ion lands
so long that much ot the natural fertility has been mined out
of the land. Southern agriculture is more dependent upon fertilizer to supplement the plant food in the soil than any other section. Figure 13 shows the fertilizer consumption by
States.
The present study indicates that, of the avera,e crop expenditure of $3,472 per plant at ion in 1034, $336 or 10 percent,
was for fertilizer (Appendix Table 121. Since a large proportion of the expenditure is credit purchase on which high
rates of interest are paid, fertilizer and interest on fertilizer bills are large items in the plantation budget. On another basis, this a110u11ts to an expenditure of al1110st a dollar
(87 cents) per crop acre (Table 111. When it is considered that
D1g1t1zed by
Google
42
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
150
140
130
j --
120
110
100
!
Agricultural Commoditie
90
J'.
'
:
7C
60
50
I
--- -- -+--
80
I
.
i
Co• oc ocd Con ocsee
--
40
30
1924
1925
192
:
j
1927
' 92 fl
=
1
-
1929
1930
I
;_ L_I_~
19 31
1932
1933
1934 1935
FIG. 11- RAT IO OF PRICES REC EIVE D FOR CO TTON AND
COTTONSEE D AN D FOR ALL
AGRICUL T URAL COMMOD ITI ES TO PRIC ES
PA ID FOR COMMO DI TI ES BOUG HT
19 24 - 19 35
Source.
I
Bur eau of Agricul tura l Economic~
AF·1425, W P A
10
1929• 100
100
·- - -
90
80
To tal United Stat es
c
70
I
~
.;
a.
60
50
40
'
~
-
Seven Sou1heas 1ern
Cot ton States
30
20
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
FIG.12- AV ERAGE NET DEMAND AN D TIME DEPOSITS IN BA NKS
LOCATED IN TOWNS OF
LESS THAN 15,000 POPULATION
1929-1935
Sour ce A nnual Rep or Is of
Fe deral Reserve Boord
AF - 1423, W P A
Dig tized by
Google
43
TRI 0NB-CR0P SYSTEM
tlle operator's net labor inc0111e, after deducting expenses and
6 percent on the invest111en t, averages just over $2 per acre
!Appendix Table 371, the importance of the fertilizer bill is
eapbasized.
There is considerable variation in the extent to which fertilizer is needed on different types of land, the percentage of
total expendi tare for fertilizer varying from 2 percent of total
plan tat ion expendi tares in the Red and Arkansas River bot toms
and 4 percent in the Mississippi Delta to 33 percent in the
sand7 Coast Plain and 32 percent in the Upper Piedmont. This
aaouats to over S3 per crop acre in the Coast Plain area 11nd
nearl7 S2 in the Upper PiedlllOnt area, resulting in a tremendous
differential in favor of the Delta and Bottom Lands (Table 11
and Appendix Table 121.
SOIL EROSION
.. .'
,.
'
.
, i:-· : _. -:::._.:.._'-'-"'-~"--'-----'
SOIL co•sr1,aT101 SIIYICI
SOIL EROSION TYPICAL OF ROLLING LAND
UNDER CLEAN CULTIVATION
Tbe traveler through the older lands of the Southeast receives two predominant impressions from the landscape--red hi Us
and ••dd7 streams, both of which are products of soil erosion.
Outside of the level Delta and Lower Coastal Plain areas, the
cotton country is rolling and subject to erosion bec~use of the
topoeraph7 and the physical character of the soil. The tremendows tonnage of topsoil which washes off the surface of southern
D1g1 zed by
Google
44
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
lands not only depletes the farm but also contributes to serious engineering problems. Reservoirs are silted, navigation
channels fill up, and flood control is made tremendonsly more
difficult.
Rudimentary erosion control was inaugurated years ago on the
rolling lands by placing the furrows along contours rather thl\n
in a straight line Md by terracing along contours. This device extended the cultivable acreage of the South by millions
of acres. It is not sufficient, however, to control the loss
of topsoi 1. The practices advocated by the Soil Erosion Service
are contour farming and strip cropping, combined with sound crop
rotation, including the use of winter cover crops; sound p'l.sture
manai:ement, including establishment and maintenance of good
turf, regulated grazing, use of contour furrows, water diversion, etc.; and proper woodland management. Such changes in
southern agriculture are difficult to accomplish under a tenant
system on lllrge tracts geared to cot ton and corn product ion.
On small one-man farms they are feasible and in the long run
profitable, but where debts must be met from cash income and
tenants must be financed, such diversified agriculture does not
produce ca.sh or pi le up profits for an operator whose profit
comes from the production of a number of tenants.
The result is that the Southeast is one of the major erosion
problem areas of the Nation. Figure 14 indicates the incidence
of erosion and its seriousness in the southeastern region.- It
will be noted that the most heavily eroded area follows the eastern plant1ttion belt, t.e., the Upper Atlantic Coast Plain and
Lower Piedmont sections which extend southwest paralleling the
Appalachian Mountain Ridges.
A reconnaisance survey by the Soi 1 Erosion Service 7 of 7
southeastern States shows 10,900,000 acres essentially destroyed
for further tillage. Numbers of other farms will follow the
same road to destruction within a short time unless there is a
radical change in the cropping system.
Erosion and other Ci\Uses of low soi 1 productivity are summarized in the statistics of the National Resources Board on submarginal land. 8 In mapping the land for retirement from arable
farming this report includes 1,600,000 cotton acres in the retirement areas. This is 10 percent of all land proposed for
retirement ilnd 3.7 percent of the totill cotton land.
Thus 11.n appreci1tble proportion of the cotton production is
carried on below the "margin" and much more is almost a marginal activity. In years of good yield and prices small profits are realized on this l1tnd, but in bad years losses a.re
severe.
7
Uopubll abed.
8 1at,o,ia& Ras01'rc,s Board Report, Decaab,r 1, 193~, pp. 180-184.
Dig tized by
Google
THE ONE-CROP SYSTEM
45
FIG. 13 - PERCENT OF FERTILIZER CONSUMPTION
IN THE UNITED STATES, 1910-1930
SOAK
NEBR
Source : SOUTHERN REGIONAL STUDY,
Umenity of No-1h Carolina
AF-2019, W.PA.
FIG. 14 - GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF EROSION, 1936
0
£,os.on unmporlonl,
locally
fTTI Modero"' slleet ond Qllllr IJOSlt>n,
ll..U...,.,.1ocolly
wond erosion ,
tZ:I rnodero1e sheet and quHy erosion
~ Sh<)M
188Mocllrate
to,....,.
wind •Maon,
~ - QUfly,n; locally
■ Moderate to severe 8fo~M)tl ,ncludft
mH01,mouN09'11.eonyons ond bodlands
■ s....-ondQUIIJ--
Sou,ce: Dl9ortment of A9t"1cutture ,
AF- 2063, W PA
Soll C - S.v,co
Digitized by
Google
46
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
The report points out further that:
Extensive areas of submllrginal land, howeYer, are
devoted to commercial types of farmini. In such
areas there is a tendency to incur excessive indebtedness during temporary times of good prices.
The volume of such debt fluctuates widely between
periods of prosperity and depression. The chllracterist ic course of development during periods of
rising prices is that of a growing percentage of
properties mortgaged and a rapidly accumulating
volume of debt until the proportion of total Ylllue
represented by indebtedness results in narrow equities by owners. A collapse of prices discloses
a general absence of reserves and is quickly followed by wholesale delinquencies, foreclosures,
and surrender of titles because of debt pressure.
Within a few yearstheproportion of owner-operated
farms may become greatly reduced as vast tracts of
lMd are foreclosed and much of it is abandoned.
Such submllrgi nal llreas are typically far fr0111 mi\rket,
and, since transportation costs 1tre relatively constant, farm incomes and V"Llue of land llre reflected
in extreme fluctu"Ltions.
Behavior of this course of events ..•. ts 9 illustri\ted by certain parts of the wheat plains of the
West and of the cotton-growing lands of the Southeast and other territories in which temporary periods of high prices have induced unduly expanded
production and increase of equipment ...• 10
PRODUCTION FOR HOME USE
The slight extent to which plantation economy is concerned
with animal husbandry is indicated by Appendix Table 19. Very
few cows, pigs, and chickens are raised by the landlord, hardly
more than enough for family consumption.
Only 15 percent of the total plantation gross income in 1934
for landlord and tenants combined (excluding rent of land let
to renters and home nse production of renterslwasfor home use
Md this amounted to only about $100 per family. 11 This shortage of home use production puts the South in the position of
purchaser of many commodities which it could produce. The following tabulation of Alabama product ion indicates how far short
that State falls of producing its subsistence (Table 161.
9 rtaUcs ours,
10 1ati011GI lu011rcu Board laport, Dcccabcr l, 19311, pp, 179-180.
11 see chapter YI.
Dig1wKI by
Google
THB ONB-CROP STSTBN
47
DIVERSIFIC&TION OF CROPS
For the past 20 years continuous pressure has been exerted
on Cotton Belt farmers to diversify their operations, but without marked results. One of the central features of the farm
delllOnstration programs has been the promotion of diversification.
Table 16-PEIICCNT OF NEEDS PllOWCED IN THE STATE Of CEJ!TAII
Conoo i ly
~
fAIII PROOUCTS, 1928
Percent of Heeds Prowced
Corn
,o
""'
30
Oats
lleat
llilk
'
73
63
Ews
Potatoes
137
S,rup
110
2,
95
89
AQples
Peaches
Ve.,ietaoles for sale (acr_.J
leteteDles for con ....ption
Cotton•
120
40
,o
• ~ - - I ■ Al.,_ e lt le 0 NI MCHh ri lr •r Al ..... ,..,, • •
-..U :
=-~=-,...::-.:~.:'~!: :::~:!!~i~:!.i!:.'~.;. (~==c·:.:::~-=~r.:: .• ,.. ..,... ,,,1c1t,,... , ........
Occasionally this has borne fruit in specific localities such
as Turner County, Georgia, where the "cow, hog, and hen" program has markedly increased self-sufficiency, and Colquitt County, Georgia, where a packing plant provides an outlet for livestock products. In a few Mississippi areas the establishment
of processing plants h~s made dairy products profitable and in
Table 17-llVESTOC« OIi FAIMS, IN SEVEN SOtJTHE4STERII COTTOI STATtS , • 1930 ANO 1935
Livestock
1930
C.tt le•
Con ..i heifers 2 19ars old and <Ner
liogs ..i pigs
:11•-.
ar......., ........
,o, C.r•IIM,
L.. 1.1 .... ■ IHIHIHI ....
hcl ... • ••••• .._. orw ... u •• a,,11 ,.
INrce :
-.&W ...,._ 0 - . .
6,964,237
4,19-4,090
3. 119.115
2,«1,916
6,2Ql,626
5,767,070
......., ..
ca,., ...
u,o:
.,.,,..w.,..,.. 1•••
,rell•INrJ ,1,. . . .
few areas specialty crops, such as toaatoes, peppers, small
fruits, or orchard crops, have been cultivated on 11 limited
scale.
The boll weevil provided another short-lived impetus to diversify. In an excess of enthnsias111 over the expected increase
in prosperity from enforced di versification, a son them Alabama
town erected a monnmen t to the boll weevil soon after its onset. Ten years later, however, this county was cultivating
almost as much cotton as before the advent of the weevil.
11
D1g1•zed by
Google
48
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
Again the World War,withpressure from food administrators,
provided some impetus for diversification but at the same time
cotton prices were sufficiently tempting to more or less nullify this influence.
The latest pressure to diversify has come from the enforced
cotton reduction progrMI of the A.A.A. The results of the 1935
Census of Agriculture indicate that probably 1110re diversification has been induced between 1933 and 1935 than in an7 other
period of the South's history. Table 17 indicates the remarkable increases in livestock iu the 7 southeastern cotton States.
Supplementing this is the hct that from 1930 to 1935 there was
a marked increase in acreaie in pasture in southeMtern farms.
There has also been a pronounced increase in acre&£e qevoted
to corn, wheat, peanuts, and hay crops, as indicated by the 1935
Census.
On the basis of past experience, however, there is no guarantee that this latest trend to diversification will remain
permanent if restrictions on cotton production are removed and
prices return to normal levels. "The boll weevil imposed a restrict ion on cotton production in the l910's and 1Q20's as
drastic as that of the A.A.A. but no permanent diversification
resulted.
Diversification of southern agriculture on a per111anent basis
rests on two necessities. The first is an increase of production for home consumption, which is predicated on a high standard of 1i ving for workers in agricul tore. The present share
tenant system is a major stumbling block to the realization of
this condition, since the landlord is not financially interested
in tenant home use production. The second condition, which has
been met for only a few co1111110dities in limited areas, is the
development of markets where other commodities such as peanuts,
sweet potatoes, soy beans, and the variety of crops which will
thrive in southern soils and climates may stand alongside of
cotton and tobacco as producers of cash income.
DigtizedbyGoogle
Chapter V
CREDIT
Except after an unusually prosperous year the majority of
the plantation population operates on borrowed money for a number of months. Landlords of plantation operations, as has been
pointed out, need on the average S3,500 during the crop season
to pay current crop expenses I Appendix Table 12), an average
of Sl,200 to feed their tenants until the crop can be sold, if
subsistence advances are made, and $150 to pay wages. Tenants,
even if not in debt from previous years, usually exhaust their
slender resources by January or February and begin to live on
credit until the following harvest.
Thus, both landlord and tenant have t'I«> types of debt. The
first is the result of past deficits or purchases. In the case
of the landlord this long term debt is usually secured by a
mortgage or bank note. In the case of the tenant, accumulated
debts are usually in the form of an unsecured account with the
landlord or merchant which stands as a lien against future production. In a few instances, the tenant's debts are secured
by a chattel mortgage on livestock and implements. The second
type of debt is the short term loan to meet the expenses of th.e
current crop. In this case the security offered by both landlord and tenant is usually a lien against the crop.
The growing crop is such uncertain security for these current
loans that interest rates are ruinously high. Few businesses
could operate profitably with interest charges amounting to such
a substantial item of expense as they do in the cotton farmer's
budget. The Cotton Belt lender as well as the borrower is often
wiped out financially in poor years. Having borrowed in advance to finance production, in years of poor yields or low
prices the tenant is often unable to discharge his debt to the
landlord. The landlord, in turn, does not net a sufficient inCOll!e to repay the loans for the tenant's share of expenses as
well as for his own. Thus, the merchant, unable to collect
his accounts, has a large share of his assets frozen, and if
pressed by his creditors he may become insolvent. Banks, which
finance merchants and landlords, in turn are unable to collect.
The whole economy of the Cotton Belt is, therefore, based on
a gc111ble as to the yield and price of the crop, a game played
with borrowed stakes.
49
Dig,
zedbyGoogle
50
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
LANDLORDS' LONG TERM INDEBTEDNESS
Twenty-five years ago short term credit constituted a major
problem to farm owners as well as to tenants in the Cotton Area.
Since then long term credit, chiefly in the form o! mortgages,
has become increasingly important.
Appendix Table 20 shows the 1934 long term indebtedness of
the landlords on the plan tat ions sampled. Almost 90 percent
of this fixed indebtedness was in the form of mortgages. In
1934 nearly half 144 percent) of the hndlords had fixed indebtedness a.ver11.ging approxim11.tely $11,700 per plantation, representing over 40 percent of the total value of land, buildings,
Table 18-PUIIUTIOII IO!TGAGES, BY Sl»lC£ (]f LOU 4NO BY RH[ (JF INT£RCST, 193'
(Cotton Plantation En...-eration1
late of tnternt
Holder
Total
Other
Goverrne-nt
Total
2,9
2.5
3.0
3.5
1
e
-
-7
4.5
16
21
II
19
5. 0
5. 5
6.0
6. 5
7. 0
58
)9
69
1
8
•6
29
23
,.o
8.0
9. 0
10. 0
Unkno,,n
4wrrc"Jqe r~ t f"
1,
-
Unknown
136
52
61
I
3
-
-I
2
19
-
5
-
3
1
-
5. 6
5.0
2
2
12
e
27
I
3
I
-•
I
-
6 .9
5.8
20
2
~
-'lnim-'lls, and machinery. This means that the annual interest
charge ;iveraged around $660 ITable 181. In spite of A.A.A.
benefits there was a reduction of only $200 in the landlords
/lverage fixed indebtedness from 1933 to 1934 1 indicating that
the profits of th11.t year were used for paying off old floating
debts or for repairs -'Ind replacements.
Most of the 1-'lndlords (72 percent), for whom the holder of
the debt was reported, had availed themselves of government
facilities for mortgage loans (Table 181.
Trends
In the seven cot ton States included in the present survey,
the aggregate farm mortgage debt on plantations and smil.11 farms
1Append1x Table 20 contains data ror 1934. Due to the small reduction between 1933 and 1934, data ror the Col'll!er year are not shown.
Digitized by
Google
CREDIT
51
c011bined uounted to less than $166,000,000 in 1910 but rose
to $637,597,000 in 1928 (Appendix Table 2u. Thus the amount
of mortga,e debt alaost quadrupled, representing a 167 percent
increase fr011 1910 to 1920, 33 percent from 1920 to 1925, and
over 8 percent from 1925 to 1928. These increases were proportionately greater than in any other area of the United States
in the last two periods. The increase fro■ 1910 to 1920 was
exceeded only by those in the Mountain and Pacific States. 2
The ratio of farm mortgage debt to the value of all farms
in the United States rose froa 9. 5 percent in 1910 to 21 percent in 1928. For the seYen southeastern cotton States as a
whole, the ratio was lower than the United States average in
both years, but the difference was much less in 192.8 (Appendix
Table 221. This increase in the ratio of debt to current value
of aortgaged !ants was partly due to the great increase in the
aaount of debt, but was also partly a result of the declining
value of land.a
In contrast to the rapid rise in farm aortga,e debt and in
the ratio of debt to Yalue, thefrequency of fan1 mortgages reuined relatiYely constant from 1910 to 1928 throughout the
Uaited States. In 1910, 33 percent of all faras in the United
States were 110rtgaged; in 1920, 37 percent; in 1925, 35 percent;
aad in 1928, 36 percent (Appendix Table 23J. However, the proportion of new ■ortgages incurred on farms not previously enca■bered was greater in the South than in other sections of the
country. Pro■ 1925 to 1928 new mortgages constituted between
5 and 6 percent of all 110rtga,es in the South, whereas in no
other area did t~ey constitate 110re than 3.7 percent.•
These fipres indicate that the South followed the general
trend in the United States by a rapid increase in the volume
of ■ortgage debt since 1910 and an increase in the ratio of
debt to the Yalue of all fat'IIS. MoreoYer, although the Yolume
of debt in the seven States under consideration coastituted a
relatiYely •all proportion of the total fara ■ortgage debt in
the Uaited States, it was increasing at a rate faster than in
■ost other areasfro■ l910 to 1920, andfaster than in any other
area froa 1920 to 1928. This was particularly evident during
the years 1925 to 1928 when the increase in the YolU11e of mortra,e debt for the Uaited States had tapered off to 1.2 percent,
whereas the increase ia the seYen southeaster• cotton States
was 8.4 percent (Appendix Table 21 J.
The trend d.. increase in fara -,rtgage debt was reYersed bet11een 1928 and 1930. Total -,rtrage debt in the United States
L•• lors Jlorttot• CnclU 0 u. s. Depart■ent or Agrtcu1ture,
tec11a1ca1 1a11et1a 281, ret1r11ar7 u1aa.
a....d oa reporte or tll• hU•cl ltot~s C•uu of Afr,cslRr• Ud reports
fl'OII tadtYtduaJ. rar■era.
'wtc1r.... , hYtd L•• ~. cU.
2wtclr.ene. DaY1d
Dig ii Zed by
Goog [e
52
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
fell to below the 1925 level, from $9,468,526,000 in 1928 to
$9,241,390,000 in 1930, a decrease of over $227,000,000 or 2.4
percent. The decrease in the seven southeastern States was
proportionately greater, dropping from nearly $638,000,000 to
$601,000,000, a decrease of 5.8 pertent. 6
Foreclosures
The precariousness of the mortgagee• s situation during the
past 15 years of unsettled cotton yield and price is indicated
by the fact already mentioned that the land held by corporations,
mostly through foreclosures, amounted on an average to 10 percent of the total acreage in fanns in the 46 counties sampled
(Appendix Table 8l. Appendix Table 24 shows the extent ot this
acreage foreclosed in the sample counties and the type of corporations holding the land in 1934. One-third of the acreage
held by corporations was in the hands of insurance c0111panies,
about one-fourth in the hands of land banks, a sixth in the.
hands of depository banks, and the rest in the hands of miscellaneous corporations.
This loss of land through foreclosure is not entirely a depression phenomenon. Studies made in the middle of the 193)1930 decade in,iicate that corporation holdings had become an
important item by that time. 8
Some of the factors in foreclosure are indicated in the following summary of a statistical analysts of the fann mortgage
activities of nine major lending agencies in five southeastern
Alabama counties, including the First Joint Stock Bank, the
Federal Land Bank, and seven insurance companies. 7
1. Io general, foreclosures and losses increased as appraised
value per acre decreased.
2. In general, there was a negative correlation between the
average amount of loan per acre on the various soil types
and the percent of loans foreclosed.
:3. Io all soil types, the land was over-valued by appraisers,
the average appraised value being higher than the sale
price had ever been. Moreover, since the relation of loan
per acre to value per acre was practically the same for
all soil types (slightly more than one-third), and since
foreclosures were considerably more frequent for land
with low appraisal value, the poorest types of so11 were
over-valued more than the better types.
5wtckens, Davtd L., op. cit.
6 Raper, A. F., op. cit.
7
11ereness, E. H., fara lfo-rtgage Loan ixpe-rience in Southeast Alabcaa, Agrlcul tural Experl111ent Statton or the Alabama Polytechnic Instt tute, Bull.etln
242, January 1936.
Digitzed by
Google
CREDIT
53
4- h
•
general, there was a direct correlation between the
percent of loans foreclosed and the size of farms. Large
farms were ll1lCh poorer risks than small ones, particularly
when located on poor soils.
5. In areas such as the one studied, where erosion was a
serious factor, the nearer the topography approached a
level condition, the better the loan risk.
6. Foreclosures and losses increased consistently as the
borrower's equity decreased. This was particularly true
on the poorer soils .
U.NOLOROS' SHORT TERM CREDIT
Tenants, with the exception of independent renters, usually
have their production credit arranged and"secured by the landlord. He borrows a sufficient amoont to meet the needs of the
whole plantation and then carries ,s a debt against the tenant
the amount necessary to finauce the tenant's share of production costs and the subsistence advances needed by the tenant
faaily. Croppers and other share tenants, therefore, do not
usually have the access to primary sources of credit available
to the landlord. Since the growing crop is generally the only
security forproduction credit, the agency furnishing the credit
usually holds first lien on the crop and other agencies have
no adequate security.
In the case of landlord-tenant agreements, the landlord theoretically provides the credit and holds the lien, both for his
~hare of the net profits and for his credit advances. In the
case ot landlord-bank or landlord-merchant agreements, the bank
or •erchant holds first lien against the total crop and looks
directly to the ludlord for repayment. In short, the landlord
obtains production credit direct fr011 the source, and reallocates
part of this credit to the tenant, usually at a higher rate of
interest.
lates
or
Interest
Another peculiarity of the cotton-credit system is that usury
laws are inoperative. The legal rate of interest is a fiction.
Credit is used, not for 12 aonths, but for from 3 to 8 months,
yet interest is charged at a flat rate as if the loan were used
for the full year. The most common practice is to charge a flat
10 percent. That is to say, a loan of $100 will cost $10 regardless of whether the loan runs for 3 or 8 months. If $10 is
charged for a SlOO loan of 3 months' duration this would be
equivalent to S40 for a foll year, or 40 percent annual interest.
Both landlord and tenant use money for varying periods.
Credit for fertilizer, bought early in the spring, usually
Cig1
zedbyGoog e
54
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
extends throughout the crop season. Landlord borrowing to meet
payrolls, however, is done from month to mobth. Credit for his
first month's payroll may extend through the entire season whereas he will have money for the last month's disbursements for
only 30 or 45 days. Similarly the number of months duration
of the tenant's 5Ubsistence advances must be averaged to calculate the time his credit runs, since his February advl\nce may
not be repaid for 8 months while his August advance may be repaid in 1 month. Obviously, a tenant who receives $10 a month
advance from Februl\ry to August, repaying in September, uses
$80 credit but only for itn averitge of 4 months. A charge of
$8 interest for this 4 months' use is equivalent to $24 for a
full year's use, or 30 percent on an annual basis.
,obi• 19-LANOLORO CURl?ENT !l()qOfWING qy N\J,l!l[q OF TE~ANTS, 19~
•(Cotton Pl.v,t,t10., [nLrftl!'rat,on)
N-•
---- Total
of
Tenant Farrii 1 ies
Total
S to 10 f.¥1\i I ies
10 to 15 f~i I ies
15 to 20 fM1ilreS
20 to 25 far1i I ,es
--
PlMt?tti1.:1ns
Trital
Rorrowi -ig•
---
'lit.nJber
Percent
339
100.0
179
61
25
21
~).O
18.0
7 .0
6.0
16
10
6
21
5.0
).0
2.0
6.0
25 to )0 f.,.ili,s
)0 to )5 f..,,i I ies
35 to 40 fami I ies
•O fami 1 i es 1• d over
I
F~1l ies
Aggreg"te
%rro•ing•
5,03)
S782,3-'7
I. 115
716
,20
,s3
151. 382
120,100
70,293
56,050
436
:119
~.5.U
60,000
)I. 650
228, 2•8
.'25
!, 1,9
-
Borr011fing
Borrowing
P••
P•r
Faffli Ir
Pld.nt11t ion
$
2,308
S155
846
I. 970
2.812
2,669
116
168
167
124
•.03•
6,000
5,275
10.~9
1'8
188
1'1
16'1
,,.,.,1.
•1Mh,-•1 all borrowl~ 111 AC1d'ltio11 to go.o•r,....,.t, ..,,ctr,ant, ferlilirer, al'ld
.,.,.. 10-•. ,.. TaD1e IO and ..
T&Dle 15,
Of the, hndlords included in this study, over half borrowed
on short term for 1934 production expenses. The average amount
borrowed was $2,308, an average of $155 for ~11ch family on these
plantations (Table 191. 8 The amount borrowed is roughly half
of the current operating expense and tenants' subsistence advances.
The banks were predominant sources of landlord credit (Table
201. A few landlords obtained government loans or advances
from merthants, and a negligible number purchased fertilizer
on credit.g
The largest average loans were from government agencies, the
next largest from banks, with loans from merchants smallest.
Annual interest rates followed the reverse order. The average
flat amount of interest was about $100 per year for cost of
current borrowing. This, lldded to the approximately $660 per
year as interest on the mortgage debt, resulted in a combined
8 on a rew other pl an tat tons tenants tlnanced themsel Yes by direct credl t
tro■ banks or merchants and a substantial nu ■ berttnanced tbetr operatloaa
without borrowing.
gror data by areas, see Appendix Table 26.
Dig 11.ed IJy
Goos le
•
CREDIT
interest charge amounting to almost
net labor income (S855), 10
55
&S
■uch
as the landlord's
Ta.ie 2o-tAlllllOII) iOlROIJIIIG FOR F'llOOI.CTIO!i CREDIT BY SOURCE OF LOAN,• 1934
(Cotton Plan tat ion En....,rat ion I
Ilea
"'-bier of o1antat ions born.ing
Total - t of loans
AveBge duration of leans in -,nths
Mnige interest rate
Bank Loans
Government Loans
Merchant loans
225
57
48
$497,566
3.7
15.2
$164,214
3.8
10.4
S91.J66
4.6
16.4
GOYen.ental lending .Agencies
Inasmuch as the Federal government has made special efforts
through various lending agencies to alleviate the losses of
fanters, analysis of the operation of these agencies in relation to the plantation system is pertinent. It has been noted
iii this study, asvell as in other studies of credit, that loans
fl'OIII public agencies or banks are almost never made to croppers
or other share tenants. The reason for this, as has been pointed out, is that the agency supplying the credit must have as
security a lien on the tenant's equity in the crop. The landlord already has such a lien for his share of the crop and for
reimbursement for bis share of the expenses. If the landlord
is unwilling to relinquish his claim, the tenant has no security to offer another lending agency. Government agencies, therefore, supply credit only to landlords, who in turn pass the
charges along to tenants, usually at a much increased rate of
interest.
The Farm Credit Act of 1933 authorized the organization of
a production credit system for farmers, consisting of 12 area
Production Credit Corporations and numerous local Production
Credit Associations. These were organized to make loans to
farmers for general agricultural purposes and to rediscount the
notes of their borrowers with the Federal Intemediate Credit
Banks. The Production Credit Associations are the local lending institutions and 597 of them were in operation as of December 31, 1934 (Appendix Table 261,
In the 7 southeastern cotton States, 147 Production Credit
Associations were in operation by the end of 1934: 34 in Georgia, 32 in North Carolina, 30 in Arkansas, 25 in South Carolina, 10 in Mississippi, 8 in Alabama, and 8 in Louisiana.
These represented 25 percent of the total number in the United
States.
10a.e
cbapter YI.
Dig 112ed y
Goos IC
56
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
From the date of organization of such Production Credit Associations through December 31, 1934, a total of 131,621 loans
were closed in the United States, amounting to SQ2,882,000.
Of these, 48,301 loans, amounting to $17,137,000, were in the
7 States under survey. These represented nearly 37 percent of
the number and over 18 percent of the amount of all such loans
closed in the United States during that period.
The average size of Production Credit Association loans was
considerably smaller for the southeastern cotton area than for
the Nation as a whole, amounting to $355 per loan in contrast
to $706 for the United States. Loans averaged only $260 and
$267 in North Carolina and South Carolina, respectively, whereas these 2 States reported the greatest number of loans of any
States in the country, 11,883 and 10,552, respectively !Appendix Table 261.
Maturi ties acceptable to the Intennediate Credit Banks through
production credit and other credit agencies are arranged to coincide with normal marketing or liquidating seasons, in order
to permit notemakers to complete operations in the season for
which credit is extended. Ordinarily maturities range from 3
months to 1 year, and under the law may not exceed 3 years.
As of December 31, 1934, the discount rate of Federal Intermediate Credit Banks was 2 percent, and the rate charged borrowers by Production Credit Associations was 5 percent.
In order to continue at the present low rates of interest,
it is essential that the Federal Intermediate Credit Banks maintain their present high credit standing among investors, thus
enabling them to sell debentures at very low interest rates.
This means that loans to Production Credit Associations must
be adequately secured and must provide for liquidation at maturity. Consequently these loans are made· almost exclusively
to farm owners, and then only when ample security is provided. 11
Congress made funds available for Emergency Crop Production
and Seed Loans 12 through Federal appropriations in 8 different
years during the period 1921 to 1932, Originally these loans
were confined to specified areas affected by disaster, and prior
to 1931 the aggregate amount advanced in any l year <lid not exceed $9,000,000.
In 1931, a considerable expansion of the program was begun
as a result of the breakdown of commercial banking facilities
11 see la,,.. Credit Ad•inhtration Tearboolt, Second Annual Report, 19311, APpenc1U Table ,t,3: federal Interaediat• Credit Banks: Loans to anc1 c11s-
counts tor tlnancing institutions, outstanding on Dece111ber 31, 1934., by
States anc1 type or tnstitotton. Appenc1u Table 5,t,: Production Credit
Association's Jf>f>lications: ReceiYed and submitted to Federal Inte'l"lllediate Credit BankS, anc1 loans closed trom organiution through December 31,
193", anc1 loans outs~anc1ing on December 31, 193", by States.
12 •Dlergenc:, crop Production and Seed Loans• becue •Emergency Crop Production and Feed LOane• in the Act ot February 23, 193".
Cig1
zedbyGoogle
CREDIT
57
in rnral sections, together with serious crop failures in wide
a~as, and low prices fo farm co111111odities. From 1921 to 1930,
an aggregate of 71,672 loans, amounting to $8,909,000, were
made in the 7 southeastern cotton States, constituting 59 perce11t of both the number and value of all such loans made in the
United States. In 1931, 197,117 loans were made, amounting to
S~.174,000; in 1932, 250,899 loans, amounting to $25,328,000;
1n 1933, 365,209 loans, amounting to S30,711,000; and in 1934,
214,132 loans, amounting to Sl3,922,000. These loans constituted 51 percent of the nu111ber and 44 percent of the value of
all such loans made in the United States from 1931 through \934
(Appendix Table 271.
It is significant that 579,341 loans were made, aggregating S44,633,000, in the Eastern Cotton Area alone during the
first 2 7ears of the A.A.A. cotton reduction program. The
c011centration of such loans in the southeastern cotton States
is indicated b7 the count7 data in Figure 15, On a state basis, the ratio of loans to !ams ranged fr0111 4 percent in Alabaaa in 1930 to 38 percent in South Carolina in 1933 I Appendix
Table 281.
An indication of i11proved financial conditions in the South
may be obtained fr0111 Appendix Table 29, showing the proportion
of loans collected during the years 1931 to 1934. In the seven
States, . 46 percent of the loans of 1931, 54 percent of those
of 1932, and 80 percent of those of 1933 were collected by
Novemb.e r 30, 1933. Eight7-eight percent of the 1934 loans were
collected by December 31 of that year. These seven · States made
a considerably better showing, with respect to the proportion
of loaned funds collected, than did the rest of the United
States. In 1931, when loans in these seven States constituted 45
percent of the value of all loans in the United States, collections amounted to more than 46 percent of the total amount collected. In 1932, when those States obtained 39 percent of the
value of all loans, collections amounted to 40 percent of the
total collected. In 1033, when loans represented 54 percent
of the United States total, collections MIOUnted to 72 percent
of total collections; and in 1934, when loans in these States
included but 37 percent of the value of all loans, collections
a110unted to 69 percent of the total amount collected (Appendix
Tables 27 and 291.
Although the proportion of cash collections to total collections in the South was consistently greater than the proportion
of all loans made in these States from 1931 to 1934, the difference was considerably more marked in 1933 than in the 2 prec_e ding years, and very much more marked in 1934 than in 1933.
Tit is not only points to improved financial conditions in cotton
areas dnring these years, but indicates that a considerable
Dig 1,20 by
Google
~8
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
FIG 15- AMOUNT OF EMERGENCY CROP AND
BY COUNTIES
FEED LOANS,
Each dot represents $ 1,000 or fractton therenf
Farm (.;redit Admin,stratian
Div1s1on of Finance and Research, No. 1367
Dig1
zedbyGoogle
CREDIT
59
amount of the A.A.A. cotton reduction and benefit payments was
used to pay current and past debts. 13
TENANTS' SHORT TERM CREDIT
Since there is no landlord lien against their crop, independent renters can negotiate loans wherever they can obtain credit,
but croppers and other share tenants are practically forced to
SP.cure credit through the landlord. They not only need credit
Taolo 21-SUBSIST!NCE AOYAIICI: l'l<!ICTICI: Of PUOOTATIONS, BY &REAS , 193,t
(Cotton PJ.,tation Enu,eierationJ
--
-
.,..
Total
Pl \ntat ions
Tot•I
Plantat i cw,s
llalc i ng
Adv.snces
.
6'6
,...
N..-wber of
7
8
or
12
76
28
6.9
1).70
10.10
B,20
9.40
17 . 30
4'
-
2
7
9
15
7
)
)
10
7
29
1
14
13
8
10
12
28
9
16
6
I
11
2
3
9.0
6.8
7.5
)4
JO
29
47
28
46
70
2!
17
-
6
70
!'>O
11
29
5
49
122
-- · -- ~ - - - - - -
5
NUll'lber of
Months
Adwanced
205
1J3
-
Tt-..sn
ti
81
~pper Ortll4
l
Months
Advanc.f
Aver~•
9
or
10
20
37
98
80
"fied
' " 'i1.,.er
" ' " ' Blurts
ArllattM!. Ri "'er
Less
- -
530
99
.._.,c
~ths Advanced
Reporting
Nurflber of
Sil.BO
40
112
l.oaer Del ta
le Sho,111
Interior Pl.-1 i n
per Month
-
Pl.\ntaitions
553
At Iant i c Co.ut Plain
Uooer Piechoftt
8lx11; Belt
&lack Sell 181'
56
Adv<1nce
c,er F•ily
9 . 70
17.20
11.:!0
12.60
16.!lO
15.)0
31
93
79
114
)A
16
2B
45
20
26
2
4
3
8
I
I
l
29
77
4
-
-I
9
I
6
30
4
2
12
5
B
6
9
9
•
2
•
•
8
I
II
3
6
I
8
12
3
5
I
I
I
-
6.8
6.6
-2
2
6.1
6.8
7 .0
6.1
7.3
I
5.9
-
•,,...., --, el••r .-.,. ,~ ■nl ••jori1, .
-
•••et•r ••Jor117
...
cht• . . .c:tual •""'~r et_,.,,., 1e•a11111 . . ,. _, • ._ .. ,., • • i l • I • tor 1J af I'-• II) 11le,il ■ tio111
, ,., ...
~~-•-
for their seeds, feed, and fertilizer, but most of them have
exhausted the income from their past crop by February or Ma~ch
and must be advanced supplies for subsistence until the next
crop is harvested.
Table 21 summarizes the subsistence advance practice of plantations. Of those surveyed 86 percent made advances to tenants,
averaging Sl2.80perfamilypermonth for an average of 7 months.
Very few plantations carried their tenants less than 5 months
and only about one-fifth of the plantations made advances for
more than 8 months.
As has been pointed out, this current obligation is not considered by the tenant as a debt, but as income drawn in advance,
and if the year's operation is successful the transaction is
·
13
Bee 1ar. Credit -'d■ inhtration, 1ird Annual le~t, 1933, pp. 51-52.
Appendlz Table 36: l■ertency Crop Production and S,ed Loans: Number and
uount or loans rroa 1;21 through 1932 and cash collectlons tbrou&h NoYamber 30, 1933, bJ Statea; and 1ar■ Credit -'d■ inistration, Second. Annual
l•Port, lf/311, pp. 63-67. Append1z Table 64: l■ert•ncJ Crop and lead
Loans: Loans ■ ad• 1D each State durlng 1g33 and 1~ and balances or
these loana outatand1DI on Dece■ ber 31, 1934,
Dig1
zedbyGoogle
60
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
balanced off when the crop is marketed.
rtowever, if the proceeds of the crop are not sufficient to pay off advances, the
accumulating obligation is considered as a debt.
Tenant Debts
Even in a relatively good year a considerable proportion of
tenants fail to repay their advance&. In the present study tenants were asked whether they lost, broke even, or gained durin~
r,,t•I'" l}-f'1Tr\L
nr~r• n~ PLA~fAT!''h f:"l\'-'IL1E~. pv fp; 1 'Rf, lqlO-lQ~
(:ott:J,, Phnt,,,,..,,, Eru"'Pr,1tlr,n)
r-
T.Htl
1 jjll,",
,n ['\"bl
Tot,1
Debt
!"'1
"\et,t
I
---
0,.ht ~r
F"'J:-.ily 'lerorl i ng o\mount
c,f '►.bt
,,..,.Hf",
$,II
'.:
1'P1
tni\
11P
1"11
11.lO
S49,1?7
~)
3, l 74
;, ,/1-16
? . "2~
,fo, lf,"1
7.
J7,45Q
i--. C}ti~
n,v,s
7['
Croppur~
1·n1
l, All
Jqq
? , : .,.
1-• ~ )
1. ~(J7
J•Hl
1, Sj6
i-t>'
1, 743
Oth"r
·,'I
!'l'l
113
111
171
143
,,
11',0
11.4
14,HI
16,3~
~5
11.R
II.I
13.4
14,"4?
1'l
d6
110
13,070
18,>46
trr lf'nll"lt"'
17. J
ll. 7
2°,.2
IQ.l.
l~P
QQ
60
1,
lo. 7
JO
11.0
45
11, 1154
11. 761
8,617
7,310
10,428
170
111
100
187
232
qentpro;
1'11>
2Cl
I 'lll
lP
1OJ2
I QJJ
111
76
71
1qin
11
0.DI
H
",-(I
nr !.p"c • r ••j ,,...
,,
I
l
ll
,i
.?l.9
IQ, "l
n."
12 _q
190
1l6
tli!
55
4A
Jl,826
1A,Cl5
12,526
9,?75
A,4tb
170
1~5
142
169
177
··"
br-d,@'!, for -•cti 111t, . . ,.. h',lil~!>IP.
the past 5 years.
This inquiry revealed that 12.7 percent of
those reportinRu came out in debt at "settling time" in 1930
and that tbis percentage had declined to 7.3 in 1933.
Among
croppers 14.0 percent reported debts at "set tlinR time" in 1930
in comparison with 6.5 percent in 1933 (Appendix Table 30J.
The nu11ber of tenants in debt is further indexed by Table 22
which indicates that 14.5 percent were in debt at the end of
the 1934 crop season.
The lowest proportion of indebtedness
for any tenure group in 1934 was among croppers I 10 percent J.
Other share tenants followed with 17.3 percent in debt while
31.4 percent of the renters were in debt.
D1gt1zedoyGoogle
61
CRBDIT
The percentage of tenants in debt is aaterially reduced by
111igration. When a cropper moves to a new location he usually
considers that he is starting with a clean slate and the landlord writes off old debts unless be is able to recover by levying on the tenant's personal property.
The averqe &1110unt of indebtedness per tenant in debt in
l934was $89 (Table 221. The debts of tenants owning work stock
lshare tenants and renters I were much higher than those of croppers-Sl20 and $55, respectively. This is explained by the
fact that the cropper's expenditures are supenised, the more
efficient crop operation of the cropper group, and the larger
borrowiq of tenants owning work stock. For all classes of
tenants there was a substantial reduction in the average debt
fr011 1930 to 1934, due probably i11 the earlier years to the increased supe"ision of subsistence advances as credit conditions
becaae progressively more constricted, and in 1933 and 1934 to
the application of increased profits to payment of back debts.
The cropper averqe debt was cut in half fro111 1930 to 1934, the
greatest reduction being between 1933 and 1934.
Tenant Interest Rates
The i11portance of credit operations in landlord-tenant relationships warrants going beyond the first-hand data gathered
in this study. Landlord advances are tnade to tenants in three
ways or by a collbination of these: direct cash advances, advances in the fora of aerchandise, or establishment of a credit
account at a merchant store where tenants are permitted to purchase supplies up to a stipulated amount per month.
In a study of 588 croppers on 112 North ·carolina farms in
192.8 15 it was found that no cropper borrowed a single dollar
directly from banks or public lending agencies. All croppers
were furnished fal'tll supplies, including fertilizer, either by
ludlord or mercbant. 18 Eighty-two percent of the croppers received cash advances fr0111 the farm owner, averaging $109 each
at a cost of twenty-one percent in interest. Sixty percent of
the croppers received household supplies direct fro• the landlordat an averqe value of $113 per cropper, costing fifty-three
percent in interest. Forty-one percent of the croppers received
household supplies fr0111 merchants on the landlord's guarantee,
aYerqing $54 per cropper, and costing an averqeof seventy-one
percent in interest (Appendix Table 311.
Thus, in this North Carolina study, subsistence advances to
croppers were 110st coanonly in t be foni of cash fr0111 the landlord.
16wooten, B. B., On4U 1roblns of •ort1 OoroUM Or~r ,ors.rs, llort.b
caro11na Urlcaltaral D:perl■ent. 8tat.lon, IUllet.ln 271, ISa1' 1930.
1811o data aN avallabl• aa t.o t.lle ;roport.lon fro■ each source.
Digitized by
Google
62
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
Credit in the form of merchandise from the landlord was of secondary iJnportance and a st i 11 smaller proportion of croppers
used merchant credit on the landlord's guarantee. Whereas the
cost of every type of credit was extremely high, the cash- and
merchandise advances from the landlord cost less than did direct
merchant credit. Cash advances were the least expensiYe and
were usually given at a 10 percent flat rate in time charges,
while goods advanced commonly carried a flat 20 or 25 percent
in time charges.
The duration of the loan accouats for these hifh per a•na•
interest rates and for the differences between types of credit
advanced. Cash advances by the landlord averl!ied 4.9 ■oatba;
fat'III supplies by owner and merchant averaged 8.3 months; household supplies by farm owners aYerciied 4,8 months, and by aerchants on the owner's guarantee 4.7 months. The averliie duration of all advances to croppers was slightly less than 6 llOlltlls
(Appendix Table 311.
Aritounts advanced to the croppers during the year aggregated
more than 63 percent of their ca.~h farm income, and interest
paid on those advances accounted for more than 10 percent of
that income. The cashfarmincomewasgiven at S766 per cropper.
The North Carolina study showed that every type of credit
cost croppers more than it did owners. For cash loans fr011
banks, owners paid an average of 6.5 percent interest, while
croppers paid 21 percent for cash loans from individual owners at periodic intervals throughout the season. 17 For fara
supplies including fertilizer, owners paid at the high average
rate of 30 percent per annum, but croppers paid 32 percent.
In addition, croppers paid interest on subsistence advances
amounting to over 50 percent to landlords and over 70 percent
to merchants.
The differences in cost of credit to tenants and owners are
generally explained as due to the fact that tenants involYe
considerably more risk. High rates are charged to allow for
defaults, good risks among tenants compensating for the bad.
As a matter of fact, according to findings of the various
credit studies, interestratesareplacedsohigh that the amount
of actual default, when subtracted from total interest payments,
still results in excessive interest profits except in years of
crop disaster. The average flat rate per dollar charged the
588 North Carolina croppers was 19 percent, and the average
loss to landlords and merchants on total advances was but 5
percent. This left a flat rate per dollar net gain of 14 percent. Since the average duration of all loans to croppers was
slightly under 6 months, the net gain to owners and ■erchants
'
17
Wooten, H. H., of>. cit., p. 18.
Dig t1zed 'Jy
Goos [e
CREDIT
6:3
cropper credit extellCSed 11as at the rate of approximately
28 percent p~r annum.
It is evident, the11, that landlords and merchants are taking
care to keep the interest rate well above any possibility of
loss from defaultine tenants. The tenant who makes good his
loans pays a hieh charee to allow bis defaulting neighbor to
slip by. Moreover, the sooller a loan is paid after it becomes
due, the hieher is the per annu rate of interest which the
tenant pa,s. Since lanCSlord and merchant credit continue to
be relatively easy to obtain, there is no decided incentive for
prompt paJlllent of debts. Moreover, the bard terms and the knowledge eailled by experience that the store bill will eventually
Oil
Table 23-:-l'UIITATIOIIS IIAklNG SUBSISTEIK:E ADVANCES: AIOJHT, WRATICJI,
AIIO AIIIJAL RATE OF INTEREST, BY AREAS, 193A
(Cotton Plantation En,..eration)
.
,.,
Total
Atl!!ntic Coast Pl.!iin
Upper P i - I
Black Belt IAI'
Bl.ck Belt IBlc
u_, o.iu
i..-r Doha
ll,scle Shoals
Interior Plain
Mississippi Bluffs
~
River
AA.Visas River
Toul
Plantations
Reporting•
.
5)5
33
M<>mt of
3.6
37 .1
29,92A
•-3
3.•
3-8
3.,
3.)
19.0
18.7
19.5
22.9
40.6
A. «36
39. •2•
n,u9
'80 , 27A
;4
·~
19
20
26
Annual
Rate of
Interest
$6)• , 980
89
16
Months
Ouratioo
81
119
Average
AdvMces
~ .031
8,1'7
42,818
46 ,061
•3.15'
89 , 262
,.o
3.,
3.6
3,1
) .7
2.9
U.8
IA.9
36,3
,0.3
3() .0
55.0
.... 1,1,-.fl•• ... hl... l •1Mtell"• . . . . . . . . . . . Mt Nt• •
_ . , .., . . . . •N .., .,all.le.
1
aN .., . .,
teflMI . . jorltJ.
c,..,.,
••re
c.._,, •J.,.11,.
take a laree proportion of the crop anpay, often cause the
tenant to bec011e disCOlltented, to prodnce poor crops, and to
be illditfere11t toward repayaent.
In short, bieh rates of interest iuolved in the system of _;
land1-ol'a-f11til1sbllig aius 11e~llant "'Cl'"ecfi t obtained Oil the landlord's euarantee constitute ■aJor factors preventilli a rise ot·
tenants on the qricultural ladder. The fact that the credit 1
s7stea is based on cash crop Hens is also a stumbling block '
to diversification. The system, furthermore, shifts the power
to ■arket the crop f1'011 tellant to landlord and the landlord
himself is oftell forced to sell, regardless of the condition
of the market, in order to meet his maturing obligations.
First-hand information on tenant interest rates was obtained
ia this stud7 ollly on the illterest chareed by landlords on subsistence adYances. Flat interest rates of the tenant's share
of expenses are usually si ■ ilar to interest on subsistence advaaces but &nllual rates are lower, as fertilizer loans, for
exa■ple, nil throughout the crop season. The weiehted average
Digitized by
Google
64
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON TBB COTTON PLANTATION
annual interest rate paid by all tenants on subsistence advances
ill 1934 was 37. l percent !Table 231. 11 This is in contrast
with the average rates ranging from 10 percent on governaent
loans to 16 percent on merchant loans paid by landlords (Appendh: Table 25 I. There was considerable local variation in interest rates-in the eastern part of the area su"eyed they
ranged from 15 to 23 percent and in the western part they were
around 40 percent.
18
■onthe, '••••
tor each SlOO advanced the tenant pays $11,16 but uses the credit tor 111
aYerage or 0011 3.6 ■ onths,
Thu le a flat rate or $11.18 tor an nerage duratlon or 3.6
o,sirt~ed
tivGoog(e
Chapter VI
INCOME
The complex internal organization of plantations, together
with variations among individual units, presents a difficult
prot,lem to persons interested in measuring the earning capacity
of the plantation system.
As indicated in preceding chapters, a plantation may be a
relatively small unit operated by a resident landlord and four
or five tenant families, all with about the same rental contract,
or it may be a unit of thousands of acres farmed by croppers,
other share tenants, cash or standing renters, and wage hands,
all working under the supervision of hired "riding bosses", employed by an absentee landlord or corporation owner. There may
be a commissary or store on the plantation operated primarily
for the purpose of selling goods to the families on the plantation, but this store may also sell to persons in no way connected with the plantation. The plantation may have a cotton
gin for ginning cotton produced on the plantation, but it may
do ginning for others as well.
To understand the factors in landlord and tenant income it
is necessary to unravel these comp le xi ties in the plant at ion
organization, and to find records of !inane ial transactions.
Many plantation operators do not keep permanent financial records of any kind, and in instances where written records are
kept they are often not adaptable to the statistical procedures
involved in studying a large number of cases. Croppers,tenants,
and laborers on the plantations usually have no written records
wl1atsoever, and often are able to give only very rough estimates
of their past financial transactions.
For this survey, in order to simplify the analysis and to
have results as nearly homogeneous as possible, the financial
r~cords obtained were limited solely to farming operations for
the crop year 1934. The financial results of non-farming enterprises s11ch as commissaries or cotton gins were not included,
and no inventory was taken of livestock, farm products, or equipment. Neither was any attempt made to evaluate perquisites such
as free house rent and fuel, comfllonly furnished plantation families. In other words, the financial data presented in this chapter rertain almost wl101ly to current cash receipts from crops and
livestock and to current cash expenditures, together with a statement of the value of commodities produced for home consumption.
65
Dig t1zed by
Google
66
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
Although this procedure does not give a picture of all items
of income and expenditure, it nevertheless includes the major
items and makes possible .:omparisons bet i,;een areas and types of
plantations. It gives a rea:.;onably complete view of the current
financial results of the farming operations on the plantations
studied, since 111inor items of income which are omitted are balanced by minor items of expenditure omitted.
Table 24-CROSS IIICOII[ OF 645 PLANTATIONS,• BY SOURC[, 19)4
(Cotton Plantation Enu,.er11t ion)
---Aioount
Source of lncc,w
Total
Total
Crop se16
Shar~ by lardlord and teMnts'
Unshared by landlord and tenants•
...
Hcrllf,
100.0
4,)10.256
1,816,314
6,68)
2,815
70.4
29.6
953 , 539
1~. 451
97 .~9
530,279
167.240
1,478
246
151
822
259
15.6
2.6
1.6
8. 7
2. 7
862, 77!,
1,337
42 ,160
65
108
69.™
~o. 859__ .___!_.164
14.1
0. 7
1.1
12.3
"""
use
___ _ _
ion ~runt or Total
S9,498
SAie of I i>ttstock t,roducts
Co•h rent fr<JI' lal'G
A.A.A. pe,-nts
-
Plent ■ t
S6,126,570
uni:Honl
Tenant ..
SB le of crop5 and 1 i•"~toct.; products
A. A.A. peyn,ents
~r
I
--••• fl01 awat 1 Ml• fer eM ,te•I at l••·
b.,_.l•n otl\erwlN ••«ifled IW , . , . •t...aP IMlwfe't NU 111are--c,.,,.,..
alld ot ,..r 1M1ra
te11.11 ■1
••
The earning capacity of the plantation system will be discussed in this chapter from two standpoints, that of the plantation as a complete unit and that of the families involved,
including the landlord, and the cropper, tenant, and laborer
families under his supervision.
PLANTATION INCOME
This section, pertaining to "plantation income", is concerned
Ill the current farming receipts of the plantation from
commodities produced for ho~ consumption and from sales of
goods, mainly off the plantation; and 121 current !arming expenses paid by all persons on the plantation, mainly to per::;ons
or agencies outside the plantation. lo some cases it was impossible to separate minor items of receipt or expense involving persons on the plantation from those involving outside
persons or agencies. However, all major intra-plantation transactions were eliminated.
with:
Gross Income
Plantations are, in the main, highly commercialized organizations depending for their income primarily upon the sale of
D1g1•zed by
Google
INCOME
67
crops. This is evident from the fact that approximately 70 percent of the total 1934 gross income of the 645 plantations for
which complete records were obtained was from crop sales, in
which both the landlord and tenant shared (Table 241.
The largest single item of income unshai-ed by landlord and
tenants 1 was received from the Agricultural Adjustment Administration for compliance with its acreage reduction program. From
these payments the landlord received an average of $822 per
plantation, compared with $108 per plantation received by all
tenants together. These combined amounted to about 10 percent
of the 1934 plantation income.
2.50
200
•
C
.2
0
c0
150
i5.
0
~
S>
100
E
:,
z
50
0
0
to
2
2
5
to
5
lo
8
8
to
II
14
17
20 23
26
to
to
to
to
to
14
17
20 23
26
29
Income in thousands of dollars
II
to
29
to
32
32
to
35
35
and
more
FIG. 16 - TOTAL GROSS INCOME OF 645 COTTON PLANTATIONS
1934
Source Appendix table 32
AF-1457, W.P.A.
The v:tlue of the products produced for home use on the plantation amounted to 15 percent of the total, of which 2.7 percent
..was landlord production and 12.3 percent was tenant production.
The total gross income averaged about $9,500 per plantation. 2
This average gross income per plantation is deceptively high
because of the inclusion of a few high income plantations in
the study. The plant at ions were concentrated in the low income
groups !Appendix Table 32 and Figure 161, but a substantial
1ErclusiYe or bo■e us• production.
2 Th• rent receiYed fro■ cash renters was included in th• groaa lnco■e, rtgures, but In all other respects the cash renter was not considered an
Integral part or the plantation organ1sat1on.
D1gt1zed!:JyGoogle
68
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
number of units had a gross income of $20,000 or more. The
income of the median lor middle I plantation was $5,540. Approximately 64 percent of the plantations had a gross income
in 1934 of less than $8,000, almost 50 percent had an income of
less than $5,000, and 15 percent had an income of less than
$2,000. On the other hand, the gross income of approximately
12 percent of the plantations was more than $20,000 per unit.
Variations in total gross income among plantations are related
to a large extent to the geo1:raphical distribution of the plantations surveyed. The average gross income per unit ranged from
a high of $26,963 in the Arkansas River area to a low of $3,732
in that part of the Black Belt area of Alabama, Geoq:ia, and
Mississippi where cash renters are in the majority among tenants
(Table 251. The average gross income in 7 of the 11 areas surveyed was lower than the average for all areas I $9,4981. The
four areas in which the gross income per plantation was higher
th:rn the average for all areas were the Arkansas River· area,
the Upper Delta area, the Red River area, and the Interior Plain
area. The 29 plantation,; in the Arkansas River area had a total
gross income per plantation almost 3 times as large as the average of all areas.
The fact that size of plantation is the chief determining
factor of gross income is indicated by the fact that the per
acre income (equating sizel does not show the wide fluctuations
shown by the total gross income. The data in Table 26 contrast
for each area the 25 percent of the plantations having the highest gross incomesperplantation with the 25percent having the
lowest. Although there was a great difference in the average
income per plantation between the two groups of plantations,
the difference in gross income per capita between these two
groups was not extreme. The average gross income per capita
for the one-fourth of the plantations in each llrea with the
highes1 gross income per unit was $196, which is only $23 more
than the avera.ge for all plantations, and $65 more per capita
than tor that group of planta.tions with the lowest gross income
per plantafion.
Net Income
If the current cash expenses, paid by both landlords and
tenants for making the 1934 cr.1p, are subtracted from the total
gross income, the net income figures shown in Table 25 are obtained. The expense items which have been subtracted from the
total gross income include expenditures for feed and fertilizer,
interest on short term loans, wages of miscellaneous hired workers, cost of ginning, and other similar cash outlays, which were
directly incurred by either landlord or tenant in producing the
1934 crop. Expenses such as interest on long term farm mortgage
Dig t1zed oy
Google
Table ~PLANTATION GROSS AHO IU INCOI,£, BY AREAS, 19)1
!Colton Plantation En-ration)
Total
Area
Plantations
R-rting•
Total
Atlantic Coast Plain
Upper Pleaoont
Black Belt IA)•
Slack Belt
0
IQ
ii
'<
CJ
1a1•
Acres per
Tot•!
Pl antat Ion Not I ncooe
Plantation Gross Income
Pldntation
Crop
Total
Per
Plantation
Per
Capita
Per Crop
Acre
Total
Plantal ion
Per
Per
Capita
Per Crop
Acre
a,s
55
90S
385
se. 12&,s10
S 9,,98
S173
s2,. 1,
S3,885, 1,2
s e,024
S110
Sl5.S9
58
42
112
99
29•
21 l
275
258
se3
•6•.173
193,384
541,699
'69,484
2,278,533
8,289
,,e,s
4,S,7
197
U7
142
138
27,91
22.91
17.59
15.17
,0.,3
299,229
1'2,12'
3'5, 708
238,688
1,408,919
S,3O
3,553
3,087
2,411
10,S,
127
108
91
17.99
33
34
27
92
785
07
785
840
l,0'.31
115
111.12
0
l, 1\7
555
l, UIO
78e
1101
1,722
207
22S
sn
378
531
998
205,969
91,948
n~.5ze
'18,949
444,965
781,938
20.01
Ul.57
1S7,3117
69,861
2,S,229
285,857
243,431
478,52~
3,212
3,1711
7,941
5,652
8,694
18,432
92
15.,0
14.12
15.18
14,911
1a.,1
18.48
""'
,o
Upper Delta
m
Lo,,er De !ta
49
22
lllscle S1-ls
Interior Plain
llissiHipjli Bluffs
Rad Ri.,•r
Anansas RI ver
!lM>er of
Per10n1 per
Plantation
'°
47
28
29
35
25
118
57
n
1'3
3. 732
17,132
•.m
•.179
11, 184
8,91'
15,892
ze. 963
18e
120
187
1114
156
2011
IA9
21.,e
2'.58
29.93
27.02
•
127
117
98
113
115
Ul.84
11.~
9.110
z
n
X
...,. Ml awe I laDle for •• ,1a11tallo11,
-c"°'"" ... HNr uare IUHII •J•r "'·
cleAter •Joru,.
0
~
-n
a,
IO
70
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
loans, or costs chargeable to deterioration or improvettents were
not included.
The average net income per plantation, according to these
calculations, was S6,024. The variation among the different
areas covered in the survey was similar to the distribution of
the gross income per plantation (Figure 171. Host of the plantation areas with the highest gross incomes per plantation unit
also had the highest net incomes per plantation unit, and similarly those with the lowest gross incomes also had the lowest
net incomes. 3 About the only significant exception was in the
case of the cropper-majority Black Belt area, which ranked seventh in average gross i ncorne per plantation and tenth in average
Table 26---Gll>SS lllC(J,I[ FOIi THE ONE-HlUflTH ~ TIE PLAIITlTIOlfS Ill EACH All£A WITH THE HlGll:ST
ANO 11£ LOIIIEST GROSS INCOME P£R PUIITATIOII, 1934
(Cotton Pl-,l•tion Enu1111Hc1.tionJ
Total
Plant aArea
ti on$
in (dch
Gro!.s Income for Orwi-fourth
of Plantations, in £.a.ch Area
•i lh Highest Gron lncone
per Pl 4n\c1 t ,on
Gr'l>ss. lnc01111e for ~f.>urlh
of Plantations. in C.ch ArN
e,th l.Daest Crma lnccJllle
per Plan tat icri
P,,r
Per Crop
""r
Inc.Group
""r
Pl,intal 100
(.apitd
""'
""' Croe,
Acre
Pl .1nldl ion
<:.,pi ta
Acre
1~1
$71,10
$196
S2~.69
S2,71!1
$1)1
$14.50
Allanlic Coast P1a,n
u
l~.47R
Bl.ck Bell IAI•
Bl.ck Belt IBI'
10
28
2~
2,759
2.)f,~
1.6011
UI
13
111
9l
IOI
151
1)5
11.40
1',97
9.17
4.75
Upp,,r 0..1
9,116
9, 641
B,353
39,071
1,B
IRII
168
158
2(1!
4). 71!
Upper P1f!ct,ont
Lo.er Delta
12
6
B
11
7
7
Tott I
Wu=>cle Shoals
Interior Pla i n
l1l.~$•~~1ppi Blufh
Red River
Arlii.dn!tas River
12,119
7 .076
26,)9)
27,A7~
795
59. 725
)6,
151
IfMS
186
199
29.~
22.<I!
25.()1
)'.19
28. (0
19.U
n.011
26.!!7
2()1
)UK!
197
~.90
'11(
4,653
575
1.1'19,1
2.1H
I.ARB
3.64,
9,911
2).35
91
,. 76
12.47
IB.27
14.97
216
2ll
25.67
113
167
100
18.58
•cro,,er afld otMr ,-.,. teNRl .. jori1,.
• ... ,., •Jorit,.
net income per plantation ITable 251. The difference is accounted for largely by the greater outlays fo1' fertilizer and the
lower yields of this area as compared with other areas.
Incoae per Capita
A distribution of the total plantation income, such as is
involved in computing the income on a per capita basis, does not
show the actual income of the persons on the plantations studied
because the landlord shares in the income of all the tenants.
Nevertheless, the per capita income figures are significant indices of the earning capacity of the plantation in relation to
the persons directly dependent upon it. When the gross plan tat ion
•••n
3 1t·wu not true ln
lnatmce that tbe one-CJJ&rt.er or the platatlona
wlth the hlgheet or the lowest 1roaa lncoaes were ldentlcal. 111th the onaqgarter b&Yln1 the hlpeat or loNat net lnc011ea, reepectl vel7. Collaeqgenr.lJ', the plantutoae rererred to ln Table al ere aot ldeD.Uc&l wit.II
tbON lDClUded lD OP. .4U Tel>le &a.
Digitized by
Google
71
0
2
4
6
8
Arkansas River
Upper Delta
Red River
Interior Plain
Mississippi Bluffs
Atlantic Coast Plain
Rlock Belt (A)
Upper Piedmont
Lower Del to
Muscle Shoo Is
Block Belt (B)
Thousands of Dollars
10 12 14 16 18
20
22
24
26 28
.....
Plontolion Gron Income
Wl»LidV2YAZ4:❖:-:-:- ...... -:-:- -:- ·]
Plontotion
Cash
Net Income
0perotinQ Expenses
FIG. 17 - AVERAGE GROSS ANO NET PLANTATION INCOME,
BY AREAS, 1934
Source: Table 2 5
AF-1489, W.P.A.
0
2
4
6
8
Arkansas River
Upper Del ta
Red River
Interior Plain
Mississippi giuffs
Atlantic Coast Plain
Block Belt (Al
Upper Piedmont
Lower Del ta
Muscle Shoals
Block Belt (B)
Thousands of Doi lors
10 12 14 16 18
I-
... .
20
22
24
26 28
Plantation Net Income
. .. ... ....
Land lord's Shore
of Net Income
-t
.v,,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,
✓
,
Tenant5' Shore
of Net Income
FIG.18-AVERAGE NET PLANTATION INCOME ANO LANDLORD
NET INCOME, BY AREAS, 1934
Source. Tables 25 and 28
AF-1491, W.P. A.
0
Arkansas R·
Upper De1 t~ver
Red River
Interior Pl .
Mississip _o,n
At1ontic Pt Bluffs
Block B Coast Plain
Uoper pe_ I t (Al
Lower o'edmont
e1 ta
Muscle Sh
Block Be I tOols
(B)
2
4
6
8
Thousands of Doi lors
10 12 14 16 18
1-
20
22
24
26 28
Landlord's Shore of Net Income
Landlord's
Lobar Income
-t
Six Percent on
Fixed Capitol
F=°IG.19-AVERAGE LANDLORD NET INCOME ANO
LABOR INCOME, BY AREAS, 1934
Source, ,.
~l\diJI table 36
AF-1493, W. P. A .
Digitized by
h
Google
72
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
income is put on a per capita basis, the average is $173 per
person, and the range is from $13J in the Lower Delta to S3J6
in the Red River area ( Table 251. It appears from these figures
that if the total gross plantation income had been divided equally amonll' all persons on the plantations, each person would have
received an equivalent of about 47 cents per day. In the area
with the highest plantation income per capita, such a division
would have given each person approximately 56 cents per day,
and in the Lower Del ta the figure would have fallen to 33 cents.
The average plantation net income per capita was $110 for
all areas, and ranged from a high of $127 in the Atlantic Coast
Plain and Muscle Shoals areas to a low of $89 in the renter
majority Black Belt area. This was the income which the plantation population had available for paying the annual increment
of the fixed charr.es such as long term mortgage interest, repairs, and similar costs, and for living expenses. These figures reflect the low productivity of the small producer units
which make up the plantation, and indicate the seriousness of
the problem of raising the standard of living among the tenant
and farm laborer classes in the southern plantation areas.
In this connection it is pertinent to point out that a larger
net income per plantation does not necessarily mean a correspondingly larger average income per capita. Al though the relatively
large plantations had larger incomes than the average and consequently, slightly higher incomes per capita, the difference
in the per capita income was by no means so great between the
two groups of plantations as wa.-, the difference in income per
plantation or per crop acre. The income per crop acre was approximately twice as large on the one-fourth of the plantations
with the highest gross income as on the one-fourth with the
lowest gross income; the income per person, however, was only
about 50 percent larger.
This situation reflects to a great extent the low productivity
of the one-family tenant and cropper farms which are the principal component parts of the total plantation unit. Even on
the large, well-managed, and efficient plantations with high
incomes, the amount of labor required for producing cotton and
tobacco is almost as great as on the smaller and less efficiently operated plantations in the same area. Hence, due to the
increase in the number of persons employed, the plan tat ions with
higher incomes do not show a corresponding increase in per capita
income. 4
It is obvious from the data that even the plantations with
the highest net income per unit (Appendix Table 331 afford a
4 The 26 percent or the plantations wltb the largest lnco■es bad approuaateh' U ve tl ■ es as 11any persons on the■ on the a·nrage as dld the 26
percent wltb the lowest 1ncoaes.
Dly1
zedbyGoogle
INCOME
73
low standard of living for the persons on those plantations, and
that among the poorest or most inefficiently operated units, the
standard of living supported by the plan tat ion system is extremely low compared to that among farmers in other areas of the
country. In the Lower Delta area, for insta~ce, there were 12
plantations among those surveyed which had a net income for the
year, above current cash operating expenses, of only $46 per
person. When the net income above current farming expe!!ses for
a filJllily of five persons average:; no more than $230 per year,
it is evident that the standard of li vin~ of the ten an ts and
laborers on these plantations is far below what is generally
reco 6 nized as acceptable.
Factors Related to Plantation Income
In addition to the size of theplantation, 5 plantation income
appears to be related to the crop acres per plan tat ion, the total
cotton acres per plantation, the proportion of crop land in
cot ton, the productivity of the land, and managed al efficiency.
In analyzing the data for the plantations within each area,
it was found that the larger than average plantations had a
larger than average gross income per plantation in every area.
The gross income per plantation increased in relation to an
increase in the acreage per plantation at different rates in
different areas. Moreover, there were some individu;tl plantation units relatively small in size that had relatively high
gross incomes.
However, these exceptions were not numerous
a~d on the whole the large plantationc; had relatively high groc;s
incomes.
It was also fo11nd that the plantations with the largest amount
of land in crops usually had the highest gross income per plantation. This would be expected inasmuch as gross i'.tcomeisma.de
up primarily of receipts from the sale of crops. In many farm
management surveys of individual family-sized farms where receipts from crop sales were the main source of income, the sc11T1e
relationship has been found.
The largest plantations and those with the largest amount of
land in crops also had the highest net incomes. In other words,
a high net income is usually associated with a high gross income.
An illustration of the manner in which the size of the plantation is related to the net income is given in Appendix Table
34. The one-fourth of the plantations in each area which had
the highest net income above current cash operating expenses
also had: ( 1) a greater number of total acres per pla~tation
in every area except two; 121 larger acreages in crops in every
D1g1:zed by
Google
74
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
area; and 131 a larger number of persons per plitntation in every
area, as compared with the one-fourth of the plantations with
the lowest net income. Among the plilntations with the lowest
net income per pl;1ntat ion the total acreage per unit was smaller
than the average in all areas except two; the crop acreage per
plantation was less than the averaie in every area except one;
and the number of persons per plantation was smaller in every
area (Table 25 and Appendix Table 341.
The amount and proportion of land devoted to the production
of cotton were also found to be closely related to the plantation income per unit. All plantations covered by the survey
produced some cot ton, and a large percentage of them were dependent almost entirely upon cotton production. The year 1934
was, on the whole, a prosperous year for cotton producers (Appendix Table 171. The yield was not far from average, and the
price of cotton, relative to the goods purchased for use in the
production of cotton, was favorable. Hence, it is not surprising to find among the plantations studied in 1934 that those
units with higher than average income also had a higher than
average acreage of cotton per unit. A detailed analysis of the
individual plantations in this survey indicated that "there was
a much closer relationship between gross or net income per plantation and cotton acreage than there was between i.ncome and total
acres or total crop acre~.
Plantations wi.th a large acreage in cotton, and this usually
means a large percentage of crop land in cotton, were the units
making the largest income in 1934 (Appendix Table 351. The
one-fourth of the plantations in each area with the highest net
income per unit also had: Ill more cotton acres per plantation than the average in all areas except one; 121 a higher
than average percentage of crop l1rnd in cotton in all areas
except two; and 131 more cotton acres per person on the plantation than the average in all areas except three. Conversely
the one-fourth of the plantations with the lowest net income
pet· plantation had, with a few exceptions, a lower acreage
in cot ton, a lower percentage of crop land in cot ton, and a
lower 1tcreage of cotton per person than the average for all
plantations.
Unfortunately, data are not avai l"'ble for the years when the
production of cotton was not so favorable as it was in 1934.
Hence, there is no way to check the general rule for periods
when the price of cotton was low in relation to the goods and
services purchased by cotton farmers. It appears not unlikely,
however, that the units most highly specializing in cotton production have the highest net income of all units during years
when cotton prices are not out of line with other prices, and
have the lowest net income of all units during depression years
when cotton prices are relatively low.
C1g1tzed by
Google
INCOME
75
The influence of 111.nd productivity on plantation income is
indicated in Tables 25 and 26. By the fact that plllntations
with high total gross incomes also tend to have high per 11.cre
gross incomes, it is evident that increased productivity as well
as increased size is measurably related to plantation income.
OPERATOR'S INCOME
As was pointed out above, thegross plantation incomewas made
up of the value of prodocts used by landlord and tenants for
home consumption plus the total cash receipts of the landlord
and tenants from the sale of crops and livestock, from the renting of land by the operator to cash renters (who were not considered an integral part of the plantation unit for this phase
of the study I, and from rental and benefit payments received from
the A.A.A. This method included the money value of the principal goods produced on the plantation and sold, mainly outside
the plantation, or used for home consumption. Similarly, the
plantation net income was arrived at by deducting cash outlays
to persons or agencies outsidetheplantation organization, and
expenditures for operating purposes made by both landlord and
tenants, except interest on mortgages.
This procedure of studying plantation income is similar to
that ordinarily followed with respect to family-sized farms.
It does not, however, take account of transact ions between persons on a given plantation. For instance, it is common practice
for the operator to extend cash or commodity credit in the nature
of subsistence advances to the tenants on his plantation, for
which he charges interest. Such interest is properly an item
of cash income to the operator and of cash expense to the tenants. The transaction is solely between persons on a given
plantation. Although such transactions were of minor importance
in the total, the incomes of individual operators or tenants
were significantly affected by them. Hence, the present discussion of the operator I s income wi 11 take account of such transact ions. The major item not heretofore included in the plantation income calculations, which will now be included among the
operator's receipts, is that of interest on subsistence lidvanccs
made by the operator to tenants and croppers.
Gross Cash Inco•
The shared portion of the operator's income is arrived at
in the following way. During the year the operator charges to
each tenant: 111 the amount of subsistence advanced, 121 the
tenant's share of production expenses, one-half in the case of
croppers and two-thirds in the case of other share tenants, and
131 interest on these advances. At the end of the year the
76
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
operator sells the crop of each tenant, deducts his portion of
the proceeds, and also deducts from the tenant's portion the
charges specified above. In ca.c,;e acreage is cultivated by wage
hands, the entire proceeds are retained by the landlord. In
case of land rented, only the stipulated amount of rent can be
considered as landlord income.
The average gross cash income of the operators of plantations
covered by the survey amounted to $5,095 8 per plantation I Table
271. The lowest average gross cash income received by the operators was in the Muscle Shoals area. and the highest was in the
hble 27-0PERlTOR'S GROSS CASli INC<,,£, BY AREAS, 193'
(Catton Plantation Enumeration)
Ar'°'.11
Tnt11l
At 1ant ic CMst PIA in
Total
Plant.'tt ions
RIP"port i ng•
St
273,62•
98,751
286,750
224,073
1,131,822
4,886
2,469
2,560
2 ,26)
8,510
118.•97
•3 .•)6
148,067
203,958
29),)24
464,ltO
2,'18
1,974
4,9)6
4,)40
10,476
16,006
•o
UpJ:;f"r 0.,.1
lJJ
•9
22
lnt~~rior Pl,in
)0
i~c:, ippi Bluff-s
RP;J R ,vf&r
47
28
29
Mi~<;
Arl,;~nSl'';, Rivf"r
Av~rage
lJ ,21lb.•tl5
112
'J9
u
Total
645
UrPP.r Pi~dfflOnt
B1t1elw &-lt !Al'
B1-,ck ~lt IHI'
LOftPr 0,.1 t.,
Mu"icJ,. ShMl'-
Oper~tor's Gross Dish Inc"""'
$
5,095
!ID.111• nol •••ilaoi. tor ofl• fll•nl ■ tion.
bcropptor ana 01,.■ r ,,..,. ta-,il -,orily.
c,.,..t•r -,0,,1,.
Arkansas River area; in 8 of. the 11 areas the average operator's
gross cash income was lower than the average for all areas. The
operator's average gross cash income in the Upper Delta, Red
River, and Arkansas River areas was far above that in the other
areas studied.
For the entire group of plantations, it was found that the
gross cash income of the operator was less than $2,000 on 38
percent of the uni ts; between $2,000 and $5,000 on 32 percent
of the plantations; and more than $5,000 on the remaining 30
percent. On 111 plantations the operator's gross cash inc011e
per unit was more than $8,000, and on 1 plantation in the
Arkansas River area it amounted to more than S61,000. More than
half of the plantations on which the operator's gross cash income
was greater than $8,000 per unit were in the Upper Delta, the
Red River, and the Arkansas River areas. About half the units
on which the operator's gross cash income was less than $500
were in the Lower Delta area and in the renter majority counties
of the Black Belt area.
OThe reader is warned against taltlng thls Ugure as the operator •a share or
the plantation gross cash income, whlch can be derlYed rroa Table 24 • .u
has been u:plained the tlgures are not n·actl.7 co■ parable because or 1ntraplantat1on transactions.
D1·1•zedbyGoogle
INCOME
77
Net Income
The gross cash income of the operator is, to a large extent,
merely a refle~tion of the size of the plantation and the general type of working agreement which is in force between the
operator and the laborers, croppers, or tenants on the plantation. On the other hand, the operator's net incorne, which is
arrived at by deducting his eipenses from his gross income, is
n,ore nearly a reflection of his managerial efforts. The relation between operator net income and net plantation income by
area~ is indicated in Figure 18.
T•ole 28-0F£RAT0R'S NET INCO,IE, BY AREAS, l'l'l•
(Cotton Plantation Enurtieration)
--·
Area
Total
At Iantic Coost Plain
Upoe,r Pi e:ttnont
8l5ek Belt (Al•
Black Belt (Ale
Upoer Oelt•
Lo.er Del t,
Muscle St>oals
Interior Plain
Wississi ppi Bluffs
Red River
Ark.sns,s River
Toul
Planhtions
Reporting•
6'5
'i6
,o
112
99
133
49
27
30
'7
'8
79
Cash
Total
Amount
Per
Plant ation
""°""t
Heme Use
Per
Plant aticn
,!mount
Per
Percent
Planuti on
of
Total
S!,6S9,002 $2,572
s1,491 ,e,2
S2 ,313
$167 ,2,0
\7S9
10.1
l•R ,600
,;A,399
163,791
B4, 76'
~t• ,600
2,65'
1,710
I ,•62
1.361
3,1!'59
129,000
'i6,9S9
132,210
106,035
•B1.3'i0
7,304
1.•2•
1.lA0
1.091
3 .€19
19,600
11,U0
31, 'fi4
26.710
33 ,29J
3'i0
1).2
7!'5
16. 7
19.3
19.B
6.5
8' ,692
1,778
1.3•0
2.365
?,360
77,30
2• ,31B
50,362
102.510
!1B.374
201,387
I. 57!'
1. 105
2,012
2. 181
• ,27B
6.9.U
7 ,3,;o
5,170
10,590
29,488
70, 9~2
110. 923
125. 5'2
207 .327
4 .•64
7.1•9
e.,n
7,168
5,915
2A2
no
7'i0
l'iO
23~
353
179
7'fi
?OS
8. 7
17.5
1, .9
7 .6
5. 7
2.9
•1eta net avai ••••• ror one plafltat ion.
bC,.ner end ooer sflare t•ft&nt ••JoritJ,
1er .. 1orllt,
c,..
The average net income of the operators of the 645 plan tat ions covered by this study was $2,572, of which approximately
10 percent, or $259 was in the form of products used for home
consumption (Table 28).
The operator's average net income
ranged from $1,340 in the Muscle Shoals area to S?, 149 in the
Arkansas River area. The average net income of the operator
in 7 of the 11 areas was less than the average for all areas.
The proportion of the operator's net income made up of products
used for home consumption varied from 2.9 percent of the total
in the Arkansas River area to 19,8 percent of the total in the
renter majority counties of the Black Belt area. In the Upper
Delta, Red River, and Arkansas River area.~, where the operator's
income was highest, the value of home use production was especially small relative to net cash income. In all but two of
the areas the value of the products used by the operators for
home consumption averaged less than $300 per year.
The average operator's net income of S2, 572 represents a return for his labor and capital as well as any remuneration which
might be viewed as a reward for risk-bearing. It is, in brief,
the end result of his year of farming operations. To apportion
01g11zedbyGoogk
78
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
a part of it to his labor and another part to his capital investment is an iirbitrary procedure. However, it is oqe commonly
used iind may be an -3.id in interpreting the net income figures
shown in Table 28. 7
The average net income of the opera tors of the 632 plan tat ions
for which complete datii on investment were obtained was $2,576,
and the aver1tge investment in these plantations was $28,694
I Appendix T1tble 111. Hence, the entire net income of the average
operator represented a return of only ;tbout 9 percent on his
investment, if no allowance is made for his labor and risk-taking or for depreciation or interest on production capitl\l not
borrowed (Appendix Table 361. If the average opentor isdlowed
$500 per ye1tr for his labor, the remaining net income is equivalent to 7 .2 percent on his investment. If $1,000 per yellr is
allowed for the return to the operator's labor, the remaining
net income is equill to a return of 5.5 percent on his investment. On either basis the highest return on the operator's
c~ital was in the Atlantic Co1tst Plain area, where the operator's net income was a little higher than the average for all
-~ reas and where his investment was far below the general average (Appendix T;ible 3GI. 8 For the relation between operator
net income and lahor income see Figure 19.
A more commonly followed procedure in an analysis of this
nature is to allow a given return on the investment and then
llttribute the remaining net income to the operator's labor.
The interest on mortgages was approximately 6 percent per annum,
l\nd if this rate of return is allowed on the balance of the
operator's investment, the average annual labor income is reduced to $855. Since the total net income of the operl\tor in
the Interior Plain area WI\S only 5.1 percent on the capital
invested, the procedure of allowing a 6 percent return on investment gives a minus labor income for the average operator
in this area of $426 per ye~r. This merely indicates that the
averl\ge operator in this area had a total net income which was
$426 less than an amount equivalent to 6 percent per annum on
his investment. This was the only area in which the average
operator's net income was less than a sum equivalent to 6 percent of his capital investment. Nevertheless, there were some
plantations in every area on which the operator's net income did
not yield 6 percent. For instance, 32 percent of the plantations
7
The capital owned by the operator was not segregated trom that rented on
13 or the 645 plantations; hence, ror the purposes at hand the discussion
must nP.cessar!ly pertain to only 632 plantations. The data would not have
been greatly cnanged, however, by tncludJng the tlgures ror the other 13
plantations.
8
Thls Is explalnecl by the tact that although all plantations Included 1n
the study derived 40 percent or more or thelr Income rro111 cotton production,
a null'l>er or the sa!Tlple plantations In the Atlantic Coast Plain area raised
tobacco with a high Income productlVltY per acre.
019 t1zed oy
Google
INCOME
79
in the cropper majority co1Jnties of the Black Belt area, 39 percent in the Lower Delta, anrl approximately 40 percent in the
Red River area were in this caterory.
A total of 181 plantations, or about 29 percent of the 632
for which complete recorrts were obtai nerl, fai lerl to yield the
operator a net income equivalent to a 6 percent return on his
investment (Table 291. An arlditional 117 units failed to earn
the operator a net income large enough to allow 6 percent on
his investment and an adrli tional return to his labor of as much
as $500 per year. On the other hand, there were 114 nni ts, or
18 percent of the total, on which the operator's net income was
hole 19--0P!.RAf0R LAAOR INCOMf.,• 193•
!Colton Pldntdtion Enlfterdtion)
i...oor Income
Plantdt1on.,. Re;iurtin,/
lo~') $ ~
lo,-s les:!il
4f\'l
l"i,-1n
Win lt-'.)S thrtri
Gd in ! 5'.lO lu
over
~500
S500
631.
100.0
s:,00, 1,5
s
9A
15. 5
13. I
I q, 5
15.5
10.6
8. 7
-2~.•Al
-IA. 1•?
26,882
70, 67•
83,375
9•.694
-l, 556
23
,. l
3.6
19
J.O
59,0\7
63. s,o
61. 116
9
1.,
0.6
0.5
ll,f'60
7,270
7. 767
3.217
3. 732
4,315
4,673
?A4. qo5
Q,497
~
IP
91'
67
55
Sl,000
Gain ,1,000 lo 11.500
Ga,n S1,500 lo !2,000
Ga,n
Ga,n
Ga,n
Ga,n
G,,,n
Go, n
S2,000
SZ ,500
SJ,000
53.5/JO
$4,000
$4, 5r.O
Gain S~.000
to $2,500
10 $3,000
lo 13,500
lo S•,000
lo S•.~
lo $5. 000
dnd over
26
,•
----
A"er .2,~e
ldbor Income
Pere.en\
---
Tut.ti
Totdl
Ldbor Income
N~er
JO
,.s
A55
-
-2n
no
1l\
1.244
I, 722
11. !'>00
17,25"
. . . , ,,.c~ (ca,,.. a n d ~ us~) 1'•1,s I 5-ercent on capit.11 ,,,.,.,, ... ,., ,n la"'3, r.uild,nqi, (e•cludin9 ooier11tor'i,
re1,1t!r-:::e,
co-i~s,.r,•s), .;r,.,..1-., ~nCI . . cruner,.
[l'to.111trl!!crs •er!!' 1nstr11cU•CI Lo •enter vl!l~fls at
co1t1en,at••• .. ,1tet •.alue, not lo• ,1.s!<e1sed value or r,,q'1 s.ciec1,1lat,ve •&lu•.•
iii'"'•,.,._,
1.10.ta not •••tlt:tlll' ,or ia plc.nlations.
equivalent to a 6percent return on his investment plus an arlr1itional amount of his labor anrl risk-bearing of $2,(X)() or more.
Many of the plantations in the mc,st successful f?roups were in
the Arkansas River and Upper Delta areas, with a few scatterer1
units in all except the Muscle Shoals area. The average labor
income, after an allowance of 6 percent on capital, was $4,679
per unit for this f:!"roup of the 114 most snccessful plantation
operators, or more than 5 times as 1 arge as the averaf:!"e for al 1
areas (Table 291.
There seems to be no rtefinite relationship between operator
labor income per crop acre and per acre valne of land IAppendi x
Table 371. Of the plantations with an averap-e per acre value
of land of less than $10, 55 percent had an operator labor inCO!lle per crop acre which represented a loss, or a vain of less
than $2.50. Of those plantations with an average per acre value
of land of $40 and over, 56 percent reporter1 a loss, or a gain
of less than $2.50 as the operator labor income per crop acre.
This is probably accounted for by the fact that other f~ctors
than fertility enter into lanrl values and by equalization of
fertility by use of co111111ercial fertilizer.
Dig 112ed y
Goos IC
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
SO
!'iet Cash Income
The operator•~ net cash income is perhaps more sil!nificant
for comparative study than his total net income. The total net
cash income of the operatorsofplantations averaged $2,313 per
unit ITahle 301, rangin~ from an average of $1,091 per planta!ET CASH IIC<JIE, BY AREAS, 111)4
{Cotton Planht i oo [nll'lll!rat ionJ
Tablo 30-0fl[RAT<Jl'S
- -
- -- - - - - - Total Pl 1nt 1t ,o,,s
qeoort ing•
••. , . Not
Cash Inc.-
Total
645
S2,313
Atlantic Coast Pl11in
l.Jp~r Pil!'O'IOl"'lt
2, 304
Alac, Rolt (4Jb
81 ac, !lei t 191c
56
40
112
9'l
Upper ~I ta
133
l, 100
1,091
3,619
49
1,578
22
1,1<1.i
2,012
Area
lo-er ~lta
'4.i s, le ~oal s
lnte-r i or Pl.Jin
))
lil i ~s i ssippi Bluffs
Red River
Dll• "Ot .,,. , • • • •
47
2,181
2B
4 , 228
6.~•
-------'-------~
29
4rllans.as qi ~r
11
1,424
tor
OM
•'•"tat ;o,. ,
-- -
l')Cro,p•r ... a . , . . , ... ,. l•M"'I . . ;., ; ,, .
"••"'-' . . ,orit,.
tion in the renter-majori t.y counties of the Black Belt to a high
of $6,944 per unit in the Arkansas River area. The net cash
income of t.he average operator wa~ lower in 8 of the 11 areas
than the average forallareas. In five of the areas it was less
than $2,000. On 43 of the plantations, the operator suffered
a net cash loss duri.np 1934, and on 151 plantations, or abcut
T•ble Jl--OPfRAIOl! 'S 1€T CASH GAIN at LOSS. 19)1
{C o ttt"lf'I Plant.,t ior, [ ~ r a t ion)
- - -Pl ,nt,11t i on.-. Report 1ng•
,.~t C3sh Ga, n n r Los,
-
- Tot~l
loss i;oo •nd over
l o:ss le~s thon $5()()
r~ ;,,
1esc; than $500
G>ii n 1'jlJQ to Sl.000
~ .. in $1. 000 to $1,5f\O
G~i" 'U,500 to 12,000
Gain $2 , 000 'lnc1 over
- 'h.rnber
-
Net Ct11sh Gain or loss
Total
Percent
4venge
6~'>
100.0
,1.491,842
'7,313
I~
2.A
l. q
16. 7
20.9
.;>f-,001
-4 , 0 ►½
l l. 304
96, 33 1
q 7_137
10'> . 28 7
1.1 91. 7'fJ
-1,449
-163
?~
10~
ll '>
71
61
721
II. o
9. '>
34. 3
290
714
1.264
I. 726
5,393
one-fourth of the 645 reporting, theoperator either ha<t a ca~h
loss or a net. cash income of 1 ess than $500 per unit (Table 311.
The areas in which the ~reatest proportion of plantation operators reporterl cash gains of less than ~500 were the Lower Del ta
and the two Black Belts. However, the proportion of plant1tions
on which the operator sufferer! an actna1 cash loss was not as
Dig,
zedbyGoogle
INCOME
81
great in those areas as in others. For instance, 13.5 percent
of the plantations in the Arkansas River area and 12.5 percent
of those in the Atlantic Coast Plain area failed to make a cash
return for theoperator as large as his current cas.h outlays for
the 1934 crop; w1tereas, in the Lower Delta anrl the Black Belt
areas less than 10 percent of the operators incurred a cash loss.
Notwithstanding the heavy proportion of uni ts in the Arkansas
River area in which the operator sustained a loss, 21 of the 29
operators surveyed in this area had a net cash income of more
than S2,000 per plantation. The Red River area and the Upper
Delta also had large proportiorrs of plantations on which the
operator's cash income was more than $2,000 per plantation.
TJul• 32-SIZE -,io CROPPI",; CHARACTERISTICS Of PLANTATIONS, BY 0R:RAT0R'S NET
CASH l~CM: R:R ACRt:, 191•
!Cotton Pl~ntdtion [nlA'l'erdtion)
Orerdlor•s Net (dsh
Inc~ per Acre
Tot,;11
l.J$:i,
Lo:i-s.
W,n
G.,,n
Go,n
Ri::~rtin<:f 4
645
U. ~ .\n.J ower
1e.:.!l. thJ.11 $1. 25
l~>S l'ldn !1.75
SI.?" to ~?.50
12.50 to $1. 75
Goon 13.75 to S5.00
~in SS.00 t~ S,6.75
Gain \6.ZS to \7.50
G.sin
Gain
lid,ri
Tot31
P1dntdlion:,
S7.50 to 5q_ 1~
J~."5 to St0.00
Sl0.00 ~na O\l~r
6
'36
!F,6
143
q1
OptHdtor's
Net
--S1, 311
-1.~75
-50'>
611
1,575
7. •91
Totdl
~~
905
3111
5S5
1,720
1,070
p7q
R2J
3,666
1,A51
3,012
"36
79
17
6. 59A
2,
A,()56
A21
5'0
569
67
1'
12
,.699
Cott1Jn
Ac res per
Pldfllal1on
wsh
I OC(Jlle per
Pl J.lllat ,on
AAS
~Q
144
'10
281
375
'31
505
'15
1••
513
1A5
379
Y 1el d
per Acr~
~na.:.I
~t_t~
Percenlciye
Percentd~t!
of Ldnd
1n Crop.:,
of Crop Ldnd
in Cotton
151
751
47.1
19.,
All
!Oil
62.n
141
?J.A
7';, J
135
17~
Zl 1
203
233
271
7
~2 .4
25.6
14.9
27.0
35.0
'1.3
1,q
179
175
?A-4
177
17R
266
121
267
3•6
293
35P
60.,
6J.5
5q_4
67. 5
71.1
66.6
76
,2.
•9. 1
'1.t
45.1
~-•
44. 7
47.0
A special area-by-area study was made of the 43 plantations
which the operators suffered a cash loss, in order to find
SOiie COIIIIIIOn characteristic which might explain why they did not
yield a return to the operator equivalent at least to his current
cash outlay. The only common characteristic founrl, even within
a given area, was that a relatively large pt-oportion of the operators were non-residents and were engagert in some type of occupation other than farming. Although this relationship was not
clear-cut, it did appear to be of some significance. On the
other hand, factors such as size of plantation and high deiree
of specialization in cotton production, which were related to
total plantation inc0111e, were not uniformly common characteristics of the plantations on which the operator incurred a cash
loss.
When the operator's net cash income was computed on a per
acre basis as shown in Table 32, it appeared that the average
yield of cotton per acre and the percentage of crop land in
cotton were the two IIIOSt important factors related to net cash
inc0111e. Most of the plantations on which the operator hart a
011
DigtizedbyGoogle
82
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
relatively high net cash income per acre were smaller than the
average, but this was also true of the six plantations on which
the operator suffered the greatest loss. Moreover, there appears
to be practically no relationship between the crop acres per
plantation and the operator's net cash income per acre.
For instance, on those uni ts which yielded the operator a
net cash income of $10 or more per acre, there was an average
of 379 acres in crops, which is about the same as the average
for all plantations studied. Host of the plantations which had
a relatively high acreage in cot ton made a higher than average
net cash income per acre for the operator. This relationship,
however, may not be si1rnificant and obviously is not uniform.
The largest acreage of cotton per plantation was on those uni ts
which yielded the operator a net cash income of from $7. 50 to
$8.75 per acre, but the average acreage in cotton per unit for
the plantations yielding the highest net cash income per acre
was not sigu1ficancly greater than the average for all plantations. On the other hand, every group of plant3tions on which
the operator made a net cash income of more than $2. 50 per acre
had a higher than average yield of cotton and a higher than average proportion of crop land in cotton. Moreover, every plantation on which the operator suffered a loss, or had a relatively
low net cash income per acre, had a relatively low per acre yield
of cot ton and, similarly, a low percentage of crop land in cotton.
TENANTS' AND LABORERS' INCOME
Most of the croppers and other share tenants on the plantations of the South do not buy their supplies and equipment or
sell their products in the manner ordinarily followed by small
fanners in other areas. They are usually advanced their seed,
feed, fertilizer, and items for family living by the landlord,
and they commonly turn their crops over to him for sale. Consequently, they are not familiar with the details of the nature
or amount of their individual receipts and_expenses. They usually know only the total amount of their seasonal indebtedness
to the landlord and the amount of cash which they received or
the amount which they still owed at settlement time. In addition, they are familiar with the few minor expenses and sales
arising from transactions with persons other than the landlord.
Even though many of the tenants and croppers are unable to
segregate strictly farm expenses from their household expenditures for subsistence, it is nevertheless possible to present
data evaluating their net income.
The net income was calculated for tenants and croppers by
the following method. To the cash after settling with the landlord were added: Ill advances for subsistence; 121 A.A.A. benefit payments; 131 the value cl. products used for home consumption;
Dig 112ed y
Goos IC
83
INCOME
141 receipts from •mshared sales of crops an<l 1 i ve~nock prorlucts; and 151 wages earned on the plantation. 9 Prom this snfll
was subtracte<I the unshared expenses borne by the tenant or
cropper. Although this method of calculating net income rteparts somewhat from customary procedure, it nevertheless r,i.ves
a more accurate and comparable picture for croppers and other
share tenants than can probably be obtained by the more straightforward procedure of 1isting fanning expenses and receipts and
calculating net income by obtaining their difference. The latter procedure, however, is appricable and was nsed in the case
of cash renters and laborers, who are not ordinarily advanced
their subsistence by the operator anrl do not have a crop sharing rental agreement.
Net Income
The average annual net income of the wage hands, croppers,
other share tenants, and renters in the 11 areas surveyerl was
$309 per family or $73 per capita !Appendix Table 381. However, there was great variation in the net income among the
various rroups in a given area, anli also within a given tenure
class among the various areas.
The averal?'e net income per family of the wage laborers was
$180 for the year, and varied from $213 in the Arkansas River
area to $70 in the Interior Plain. It is significant that the
average net income per capita in the wage laborer group ranged
in the various areas from $52 to $96 for the year. The average
of $62 for all areas is about 17 cents per day. In every area,
except the Lower Delta, the ar,nual family income of the wage
workers was less than that in any other status. On a per capita
basis, however, the laborers' average net income was higher than
the croppers' in four areas; higher than tl,e share tenants' in
two areas; and higher than the cash renters' in the same two areas
!Lower Delta and Mississippi Bluffs areas) IAppendixTable 381.
More than halt of the total number of families for which income data were obtained were share-croppers, whose average net
income for all areas was $312 per farni ly or $7i per capita. The
croppers' average income per family and per capita was highest
in the Atlantic Coast Plain area and lowest in the Lower Del ta.
In the latter area the croppers' average net income amounted to
$38 per person, or slightly more than 10 cents per <lay. In the
cropper 111ajori ty counties of the Black Belt the average net•
income of the share-cropper families was !';lightly higher than
that oftheother share tenants. In all other areasthecroppers
9
The 1te11 •cash after settling• 1s the amount Wh1cl, the operator owed the
tenant arter dividing and selling the crops and deducting the tenant's
share or rar11 ezpenses and tbe amount or his subsistence advance; or, ob·
versely, 1t 11111 be the amount wh1cb the tenant owes the operator at th£
end or the year.
oig1 -z-d by
Google
84
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
had a lower net income, hoth per f3.mily and per person, thlln
either the other share tenants or cash renters.
The share tenants had 1'n averai;e net income of $417 per fal'lily, or $92 per capita, thehiihest of any of the tenure groups.
Five of the eleven areas reported more than this average, but
only three-the Atlantic Coast P11'in, Interior Plain, <1.nd Red
River areas-reported as much its UlO a year or 30 cents per
day as the net per capita income of share tenants.
A m/\jori ty of the 650 cash renters were in the Black Belt
and Lower Del ta are/ls, which ,.,ere among the poorest ;,,reas studied. The heavy concentration of c.:tsh renters in these 1lreas
resulted in the ,wer.:ti;:e net income of the renters for all areas
1$354 per family) beini considerably lower than the co~parable
average for other shue tenants (Appendix Table 381. In most
areas, however, the net income of the renters was higher than
T•ble 33-CROPPf"R ANO OT1£R SHARE TENANT NET INCCM:" PER FAIIILY,
ANO PERCENT OF Cl10P ACRES IN COTTON, 1934
(Cntton Pl1tntat ion [nUl'llll!rat ion)
-
________
ltet lnc<J¥ F?r Family
Tot•I
S 50 to SIOO
100 to
ISO to
?00 to
?'iO to
300 to
400 lo
~00 and
1'0
200
7.-..0
Pl-'lntal
___.__
1on5
~
'ilu.,.ber
Pere ~~t -
less
th1n 10
---
10 - 50
50 - 70
131
70 and over
100 .0
95
I. 3
5.5
1
4
16
8
1
7. I
A. 7
~-2
5. 7
1
21
21
u
6
3
2)
10
8
46
74
28
3
33
3B
15
300
400
'\00
J.5
over
? .0
Medi an i ncoae
9t ....
~rcentage of Crop Acres in Cotton
~~~~r- t, n11_'
21
273
4
25
2
I7
16
30
16
6
1
1
i331
S307
S297
S243
MIid ...... " " ·
•r. . acce ,1.,.ta1 lont al'ld catth r,I ant at lont ••cl•dNI.
that of 3.ny other tenure ;;ro11p. The average net income of the
renters w:i.s highest in the Upper Delta, where it amounted to
$561 per family, or $146 per capita.
Variations in tenant net income are directly related to the
quality of the land operated. Thus, the net income of croppers
-'lnd other share ten:rnts on land valued at $20 or more per acre
was found to he definitely higher th1'n the income of those on
poorer land !Appendix Table 391.
Since it has been pointed out that plantation tenants often
are not allowed by landlords to devote much land or time to food
crops, it may also be si;:nificll.nt to note how net income of
croppers and other share tenants varies with the ratio of cotton
acres to all crop ll.cres on the plantation. It is evident from
Table 33 that there is a tendency for croppers and other share
tenants on plantations with a small percentaJe of crop land in
cotton to have a relatively high net incoMe. As the percentage
of crop acres devoted to cot ton increases, the net income of
Dig tized by
Google
INCOME
85
croppers and other share tenants decreases, the median net incane per family on plantations having less than 30 percent ot
their crop acreage planted in cotton being $331, as coJ11pared
with $304 tor all plantations and S243 for planta-iions devoting
70 percent or more ot their crop acreage to cotton. The fact
that income decreases as cotton acreage increases is because
the higher incomes of plantation families are those which include large &1110unts of home use production I Appendix Table 401.
Net Cash Tncoae
Since the net income of croppers and other share tenants includes the value of advances for subsistence made to the• by the
Tab l e ) ' -CJIOPl'ER JI() OTHER SHARE TENlNT NET CASH 11«:()o( , BY AREAS, 193•
(Cotton Plant e t ion Er-..-ra t ionJ
--Oth er Shue Tenants
Cropper-s
,--
·i
Area
-··- - - -Tot 1 l
-- -
Net
Total
f'~ilies
Qeport ;ng'
·· - --
At l~nt i c Cout Pl si n
toper Pieo,.,iont
e l,ck Belt l• l '
.
--- -
- -----
--
-
-
-·
?17
12•
25~
49.4
16
177
71
31.1
'!8. 4
29 . 4
43 . 0
'i}
•04
43
70
2~
Per
I
I
I
n2
104
13
9n
138
35
136
29
177
257
125
259
42
137
109
75
129
109
10
30
24
19
35
~
27. 7
40. 6
33 -~
33 -~
42 .2
45.2
62
- --
mi
110
I~
2)
119
21J
49
51
211
21 5
41!
61
29
47
1
Tot.!!11
~et lncc,,r,e
I
--- G---120,
s-t4 I
., .4
272
46
Per 7 " e ; ~ ~
f' Vl'ld _.,. 1I Perc;on
i
.c,,.,..,. ...,••, • .,. ,...., ..
••...1•, .. j.,u,.
lnco,ie
7~
I
r.,
Toul
Person ~.t
Net Cash I ncane-
Tot a l
f'.yn, I i e5
Reoort i ngi,
•0. I
I
,o r IJ r .. i l
.
'"""""
Perc~tof
\28
qed q i ver
Arll::,n s ::n, i:li ve- r
IIOI ••• i hllit
F,1111i ly
C,>h
Per
un
lo-er ~ It,
... ,c le ShO-.J I s
hner ior Pl.u n
Wi 5'5 • ss i pp i ~ lulls
0.la .. , .. a i l.le
Fer
- -- -- - - -- - ----- - - - -
2, 87,
Bl sck Bel t m1•
Upper ~Ii.
• .. te
-·- - - --
149
•zo
2~
I
I
70 i
~I.I
,1
72
10
39.9
;'3 .9
I
I
I
~, I
29.1
50. 9
12 !
•5 '
45
~I
lll
60
42 .8
;,9 .4,
53.6
60.1
72 . 7
n .s
l •a.
11 r .. 111ea.
j.,11,.
landlord during the crop-making season and of products used for
h011e consumption, it is important to show the proportion of
their total net income which they receive in the form of cash.
It has often been claimed that most of the share-croppers and
tenants of the South receive practically no cash income, and
are very largely dependent upon the credit advances, usually
called "furnish", made by the landlord. Although approximately
10 percent of the cropper families and about 17 percent of the
share tenant families were in debt to the plantation operator
at the end of the season !Table 221, to and, hence, received
•ery little cash from their fanning operations during the year,
it was found that the average cropper family had a cash income
Digitized by
Google
86
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
of $122, or $28 per person and the average share tenant family
had a cash income nf $202, which was equivalent to $44 per person. Approximi\tely 4C percent of t~e croppers' net income, and
about 47 percent of the net i 11come of the share tenMts, wac; in
the form of ca.sh (Table 341.
Among the cropper group the highest net Ci\Sh income, both per
family :ind per person, was in the AtVi.ntic Coi\st Plain area,
where the net cash income of $255per family was over two-fifths
of their tot.al net income. In the Lower Del ta, the average net
cash income per family and per persnn i\mong the croppers reached
the extreme low of $42 and $10, respectively, this being only
28 percent of the total net income. The aver'lge net cash income
perfa'llily and per capita W-'lS higher for the other share ten-'lnts
than for the sh:ire-croppers in all areas except the cropper majority !Hack Belt. As Wlls true of the croppers, the share tenants in the Lower Deltll ranked at the bottom of the list both
in the amount of n~t cash income received and in the proportion
it was of their tntal net income. The averllge net cash income
of the shllre tenants in this -'l.rea WllS only $51 per fi\mily.
About three-fourths of the net cash income of both the tenan ts and the croppers was acco11n ted for by "cash after sett 1 i ng."
As has been previously explained, "cllsh after settling" refers
to the difference between the Vlllueof the cropper's or tenant's
part of the crop and the amount which he owed the operl!.tor for
farming supplies, subsistence advllnces, and interest. The average cropper had i\ c.'lsh income of $21 in extra wages 11 and $8 in
A.A. A. benefit paYlT!ents. The llver;ige share tenant received $17
in cash from ~ach of these sources. In both tenure groups the
net receipts from s-'ll es of unshared crops and livestock products
were -'llmost negligible.
Only in the Atl-'lntic Co:ist Plain a.nd Muc;cl e Shol!.ls areas did
the croppers receive an avenge of more than $100 per family
-'lfter their share of farming expenses -'ind their subsistence advances had been deducted from the value of their part of the
crops produced. In the former ~re;i, the 212 croppers from whom
complete records were obtained received an average of $218 per
family in the form of cash after settling; however, 10 percent
of the group either "broke even" or were in debt from their
farming operations. In the Lower Delta area the average amount
of cash after settling received by the cropper families was $33,
and only 70 percent of the fami 1 ies had llny cash due them. Apr,roximately 17 percent of the f ami 1 ies in th is area "broke even",
and l3percent suffered a loss. The cash after settling received
by shllre tenant fllmilies was considerably larger in amo11nt than
among cropper families, but a larger proportion merely "broke
11 Ir the cropper perrorms plantation duties other than those 1nc1dent to
producing the shared crop, he receives extra pay.
Dig t1zed by
Google
INCOMI
e,yea• or lost. la the Lower Delta onl7 53 percent of tlle sltare
tnuts bad an7 casb dae them at settle111en~ ti11e, ud tbe avera,e aaoant tor all tbe tenan~ failles ii tbe area was od7 128
per f•ilf. TIie highest aaoaat of cash after settling per failf
aoag the share tenants was in the Atlantic Coast Plain area,
where tlle le failles anra,ed 1373 al though 2S perceat of them
received no cash at settle111ent ti■e.
Tlte following suua17 shows tbe source of the avera,e nei
inc:oae of wa,e buds, croppers, share tenants, and cash renters
cOYered b7 the sa"ef. As is e.-ident fn,a these figures, OYer
Table ~ l INC<IE rs PUlflATICII FAMILIES, 8Y lYR:, 19'34
(Cotton Plantation EnUllll!rat ion)
Total rat Inc,_
....
C..h I t Cul, after wt t I Ing
A.A.A. 111,-nta
lNllared .. , .
b-caah I t S..lstMCe
"'- oroduct Ion
-nc•
llagelland&
Croppers
Other
Shara Tenants
$180
$)12
$417
'354
148
122
1911
Cash Rent•n
2
202
152
17
17
16
)2
190
215
158
32
85
105
70
145
158
148
-
-
91
21
8
-
26
170
-
00 percent of the inc011e of the wage hands was in the fofll of
cash wage pa711ents. On tbe other hand, the share-croppers recehed onl7 about 40 percent of their incoae in the fofll of
cash, aad approd■atel7 eo percent was aade up of subsistence
adYances b7 the landlord and c011110di ties produced for h011e consnptio1. Alllost half of the share ten{lnts 1 ine011e was in the
fofll of cash, ■ost of whicb was •cash after settling." The subsiste■ ce adYance ■&de bf the ludlord to share-croppers and other
share tenants wu coHiderabl7 less than the value of tlte products which tbe7produced fortheirhoae collsmiption, andaaounted to approxihtely one-fourth and one-sixth, respectively, of
tbeir total net i1c:oaes. About 55 percent of the net inc0111e of
the cash reaters was ill the for■ of cash, and was pril,arily
fl'OII the sale of crops and- livestock products. The balance of
their ineo11e was in the fol'III of A.A.A. pa1111ents and products
for hoae ase CTable 34-Al.
MUTUAL DSPRIDRNCS OP TENANT AND LANDLORD
It bas been broarht oat in the preceding sections that 70
percent of the plutatio1 ineo11e was fro11 sale of crops and that
oily 30 percent included unshared ite111s, sucW as ■ iscellaneo•s
livestock and livestock product sales, and products consu■ed bf
the plaatatiOD faailies. Thus, 70 percent of the plantation
hc011e is shared incoae Cescept where it is produced by the
landlord with hired labort. It is alaost exclasivel1 upoa crops
that the laadlord aad te■ ant are ntaal17 depe■ deat for cull.
Digitized by
Google
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
88
Obviously then the landlord and tenant are mutually dependent
upon the factors which affect crop production and price. Less
capable of objective measurement is the managerial ability of
the landlord and the energy and ability of the tenant. Both of
these, however, are factors affecting production and in these
respects the joint cash inc0111e of landlord and tenant are interdependent.
Appendix Table 41 indicates the extent to which tenant income
and landlord inc0111e vary together. There is a fairly stead1
rise in tenant income as operator income pe1 crop acre rises.
5
0
-------------·-----------------------------~
LISI tlol
$ 150
$ 150
to
S200
to
S250
10
S300
to
$400
$400
to
$500
S 500
and more
Avera9e tenant net income per lomily
FIG. 20- MEDIAN OPERATOR LABOR INCOME PER CROP ACRE
BY AVERAGE TENANT NET INCOME PER FAMILY
1934
Source Appendix table 41
AF- 1427, W.P A
On the plantations yieiding the landlord Sl5 per acre and better,
nearly 90 percent of the tenants were earning $300 or more per
family. On the plant at ions where landlords showed an actual loss
one tenant in every six netted less than $200 and only about 46
percent made $300 or more. Figure 20 shows the steady rise in
operator labor income per acre as tenant net income increases.
On plantations where tenants received an average of $500 or
more net income the median operator labor income per acre is
about two and one-half times that for plantations on which tenants averaged only $150 to $199.
The efficiency of plantation operations seems to vary with
the type of rental agreement entered into between the landlord
and the plantation families, which determines to a large extent
the amount of supervision provided by the landlord. This
DigtizedbyGoogle
INCOME
89
relationship becomes apparent in an analysis of cotton yield per
acre IJy tenure status of the family (Table 35). Wage hands and
croppers had an average cotton yield of 261 and 260 pounds per
acre respectively, while the figure for share tenants was only
T,ole J'>-CDTT(l~ Y!Fl~ F'(q ~C'l!: , "Y TE~IJ!F STATUS~ Ft\lll![S, ~y 'IRI:~. 1934
---~~· =-~~1~:.
!Co tto., Pl,ntit,on Enu"'er~tion)
v;eld per Acr• (pau"'1sl
To ul
1"\\H i on .-..
P<' rt ,,..~s
6.t l ,nt1 c -_.'11'.'-.' Pl,,n
• :, :,.,- P1,,. t-Jnt
--:i; , c i.: A,olt {AJl'l
~ ! \C ii ci..e l ' i 11) c
:,r'li:- r 'lei t,
r.-1,~
¼, .-. cl~ ';h0 '1! ~
l •i! :- r , or Pl, , .,
',I . ,'"> 15S• C0 1
~ ... 1
'Hu"-;
:?iVt'r
' ~ •• "Ot
•••ii•.> '•
')C•o.,H, a•d 01"«'"
<..,,, ... -jor t t..
H•no•
Other 5hr1re
Tenants
Croppers
257
261
260
2U
293
245
249
243
297
29)
309
271
261
26'
284
257
227
301
258
19'
16'
267
37
21
30
•5
723
746
ICM
28
234
220
264
2/lA
239
2)A
711
768
212
248
I'll
7711
2'7
212
260
zq
.\ri.-'lns-1s r:?1-ff!r
llage
55
39
105
~I
I 32
"°'
Tt, ' "11
1,~ _.r
Tot 1I
-
-
ng
305
209
233
191
206
240
18'
tor •• itl~nlH•Of'\ .
, .,_,., t..-11t . . JO"lr .
244 pounds. In 7 of the 11 areas this order was followed. The
expt anation for the het ter results obtained by wage hands and
:rappers may lie partly in the clo;;er supervision given to their
operations, and partly in the fact that a landlord may have a
tendency to assign the best land to such families, since he
Table 36-AYERd IICc,,( IE PWITATIOIIS, 9Y rm: IE OIUATIOII, 19'4
(Cotton Plantation E,._rat Ion)
Pl•nldU0"5 Oper•led uclw•i .. 11 bJ
118"
..,._ Labor
Averd::1e
Tola I
'IUff'ber of pldntat ions
Pl .1ntJ1t1011 total ,Jrn~s income•
PLsnt~t ,on tot.ii expensesb
PI.Jn t.tt,Jn net ,nccne
38
$)17 ,000
IA6,
125,700
,oo
$8,211
4,903
12,000
)\6
~ - 700
57,000
2,992
1,492
1,500
Te n.int net •ncvffll!r
-
io. no
L,nal ord net ,ncone
S u . pe r cent r~turn on investl'll!nt
l.1n..1 l o r J I ~bor 1nccne
),JOA
...,.,.
Cr011pers •nd Other
Share Tenanh
Total
546
ss. 712,000
~. (Jl9. 000
3,623,000
2, Ul,000
1,4112,000
9Rl,OOO
50\, 000
,10,462
),1126
6,6)6
3. 921
2,714
I, 797
91~
Renters
Total
47
$45,800
17,600
-
211,200
'8,200
20, 000
Aver•
S 974
)74
-
600
1,026
-426
••--•ta. ■nd • • • N,-fs;
,.c1 ..., ••..,..•11 or , . .c•"·
"""°'·
••nc•"41'1 u," 111<~ af'ld ,.._. .-. •'Ht11Clio11 or t ■ ftlltord . cn,ppua. sfWIN
rent .
ifllC.lltdff •••flor<I iftlCoiae r,oia
••<I..0.1 •11 ,,acoae of
iH'tMr.-,J D111t
1nc 1..,.,, ...... ,.., or laftllllord afld ,.,..,,
1
,...,er•;
clflc;l-9" C.lft . . . . . . . . . . . . frlNKIIOft ;
<••"
h"''" .,,..,
eacl..aft
C-alfl
'"'aa.
or
••o-
receives a larger share ::,f their crop than he receives from other
share tenants.
It does appear, however, that opera tors using wage hands exclusively had a larger labor income than those who employed
mainly croppers and share tenants, the averages being Sl,500
D1g1• zed by
G oog e
90
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
and $918, respectively (Table 361. Those operating their plantations exclusively with renters averaged a labor income of
minus $426, th is type of operation obviously being much less
profitable.
Dig tized by
Google
Chapter VII
TSNAIT 1 8 STANDARD OP LIVING
Although the present study did not concern itself directly
with the details of the tenant's standard of living, muchot the
■aterial in other chapters bears on tenant incomes and expenditures. It is the purpose of this chapter to draw these tacts
together with the findings of other studies which reflect on the
tenant's way of lite. These tacts are concerned principally
with the free se"ices of the plantation, such as fuel and housing; low cash incomes; the custOftl of paying part of the income
in advance in supplies instead of 11¥)ney; and the small amount
of foodstuff produced for home use.
Fundamental to the understanding of the living habits of tenants is the realization that they exercise a relatively limited
choice in determining these habits, and have been supervised for
so long that if they did have a freer choice they would not have
the knowledge of other ways of living essential to change. The
system of agriculture determines,tirst of .all, that they devote
theaselves almost exclusively to cotton, supplemented by enough
corn to feed tlae plantation animals. The landlord detennines
what sort of house the tenant shall live in and what the amount
and characteristics of the nonthly "furnish" of foodstuffs
shall be. It the tenant has lived under these conditions for
a number of years, not only cultivating his land under close
supervision but also arranging his household budget under equally
rigid oversight, the loss of initiative and self-reliance is
marked.
A peculiarity of tenant income is the irregularity of its
distribution over the year. The subsistence advance of the tenants in this study averaged about Sl3 a mnth for 7 months
(Table 21). This represents approximately a third of the tenant 1 s inc011e 1 and usually begins in January or February. During
the spring and suuer months the advance cons ti lutes practically
the only family outlay. The other two-thirds of the tenant's
inc011e is derived fro■ home use products and the cash balance
tor his share of the crops sold. These latter two items inl934
aaounted on the average to about $200 for the croppers and $300
for the other share tenants in this stldy. Sale ot crops usually
91
D1·1•zedbyGoogle
92
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
takes place in the fall and early winter 110nths. Huch of the
cash is immediately used for payment of extra plantation debts
such as doctors' bills and for annual purchases such as clothing aid household equipment. The home use products, pred011inantly pork, corn 111eal, syrup, sweet potatoes, and cow peas, are
also available primarily in the fall,and since storage facilities are limited these products must be conswned within a short
time. Thus, one-third of the inc011e is spread over two-thirds
of the year and tw-thirds of the incoae is expended in onethird of the year.
ROUSING AND FUEL
No attempt was made in income calculations of this study to
estimate the value of plantation perquisites, such as house,
fuel, game, berries, and nuts, which are free to the tenant.
The use of the land provided in the landlord-tenant agreement
carries with it these privileges, none of which except house ~nd
fuel is of appreciable value. It is difficult to place a money
value on the fuel used by tenants because it consists entirely
of wood and the pi-ice of wood in town is largely conditioned
by the cost of cutting and hauling, services which are performed
by the tenant for himself, so that he receives only the value
of the wood.
The housing funished tenants in the Cotton Belt can, however,
be evaluated by objective measures, notwithstanding the fact that
these measures must be interpreted with the realization that
actual physical as well as cultural requirements differ for various areas and tlaat few generally accepted 11ini111u111 or optimum
standards exist. Frot11 any aeasure adopted, however, it appears
that the housine for cotton tenants is below the level of any
other large segment of the Nation's population.
Value of Housing
According to 1930 Census reports, the average appraisal value
of farm dwellings in the seven southeastern cotton States-Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisia.na, Mississippi, North Carolina,
and South Carolina-is lower than that for the United States as
a whole or for any geographic division thereof (Appendix Table
42 and Figure 211. In considering the Census figures the reader
is reminded that they represent the faniers' estimates of the
value of their buildings and "are probably somewhat less satisfactory than the figures for the total real estate ~alue." 1
Cigtl .er! by
Google
TENANT'S STANDARD OP LIVING
llllllll!lo.n.rs
93
-Tenants
Hundred dol lors
0
5
10
15
20
25
United States
New Enoland
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Seven Cotton States
Alabamo
Arkansas
Georoia
Louisiana
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
FIG. 21- MEDIAN VALUE OF FARM DWELLINGS,
BY TENURE, 1930
Source : FiflNnth Census of the
United Stales : 1930. sc,eciol release
Af-149!5, W. P. A.
Digitized by
Google
94
LANDLORD AND TBNANT ON TRI COTTON PL~NTATION
The seTen southeasteni cotton Stlltes !all into three geographic divisions as listed in the United States Census:
South Atlantic-North Carolin&, South Carolina, and Georgia.
last South Central-Alabua and Mississippi.
Mast Somth Central-Arkansas llnd Louisiana.
The aTerage values o! famers' dwellings in these areas are
the lowest in the United States: South Atlantic, S783: West
South Central, _S584; ud Bast South Central, S503. Moreover,
in every instance, the States under su"ey haTe the l~st values
within their respective areas. The average!orall rural dwellings in these seTen States is S467, including the hoaes ot both
T•blo )7-YER.CC VlU.E OF FlRII Ol[LLIICS IN SEYEN Sam£ASTEJ111 COTTCJI STATES,
BY COUii All) TEIUIC OF OPERA TOR, 19)0
Atri,erage Y•I we
State
•h• le
To la I
Seven cot ton Stat e5
···-
,~
512
O..ner$
s
R!S
Arkan~
46,t
721
615
Georu•a
~
fl!>!
Lou i s i ana
Miss. 1ss,pp 1
617.l
523
1162
North Carol Ina
South Carol ino
>49
905
757
I, (llJ
763
Nt~ro
r~nu,
Tota l
Owners
Tenants
$)A:)
S2t15
s1n
$245
J37
110
2!3
285
348
)96
355
1M
371
3~0
19'
113
250
221
252
51)
~
456
~
~
282
348
238
u
375
247
ze4
owners and teaants. This 11&7 be contrasted with average values
of dwellings in the other regions: Middle Atlantic, S2,237; New
England, S2,218; East North Centrit.l, Sl,657; Pacific Coast,
Sl,617; West North Central, Sl,559; and Ho11ntain., $989. Although
the average value of dwellings in the Mountain States is lower
than in any region outside of the South, it nevertheless is 111ore
than twice the average ...aloe o! dwellings in the seven southeastern cotton States.
Median values !_or dwellings of fara owners in the South Atlllnt ic, West South Central, and Bast South Central regions were
$782, S711, and $512, respectively . . For tenant dwellings, the
three southern regions had 11edian nlues o! S374, S361, and S314,
respectively. For tenants in other areas, the Mountain States
ranted lowest tS682t and the Middle Atlantic States highest
I $2,0581. The Middle Atlantic States also had the highest median Talue !or owner~ lSl,9861 !Appendix Table 42».
In the seven cotton States under consideration, the medilln
nlne of tenants' houses ranged fro■ S291 in Mississippi to
$417 in North Carolina. This means that if the vahe of tenant dwellings was capitalized at 6 percent, the tenant receiTed as a perqaisi te free rent to the 1111ount of fr011 Sl8 to S25
per year.
Digitized by
Google
TENANT'S STANDARD OF LIVING
95
The 1930 Census reports indicate that for the seven States
under consideration, owners' dwellings were evaluated, on the
&Yerage, alllost twice as high as those of tenants . The difference
between the value of owners' and tenants' dwellings wa.s much
less in the case of the Negro than of the white farm families.
ONE OF THE WORST OF THE TENANT HOUSES
For the seven States as a whole the dwellings of the white families were appraised at twice the value of those of the Negroes
(Table 37 and Figure 221.
Types
or
Dwellings
As shown by a Nat ion-wide fanw housing study lll&de by the Bureau of Home Economics in cooperation with the Civil Works Adainistration in 1934, 1 the 111ajority of the houses in the seven
5
ICODO ■ lcs, UDlted Statu Dep&r'841Dt or Agriculture, and the ClYll works .ldalDlstratlOD cooperated 1D CODdUCtlllg a Far■
Bous1a1 811ne7. In the aeYea States, Alaba■ a, Arkansas, Oeor11a, Loulslana,
Mlsalsslppl, North Carolla&, and South Carolina, 10 percent or all rar■ s
were Included ln tbe sune7, AD atte■pt ••• ■ade to obtain a repreaentatl•e suple lncludtn1 rou&hl7 10 percent or all white owners, white tenants,
le1ro owners, and 1e1ro tenants.
ID UIM tile Bureau or ROM
Digitized by
Google
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
96
FIG.22
AVERAGE VALUE
DWELLINGS
OF FARM
IN SEVEN SOUTHEASTERN COTTON STATES AND THE UNITED STATES
1930
......................-
UNITED STATES AVERAGE
ALABAMA
WHITE
. . . . . . . .. .
NEGRO
....-
ARKANSAS
WHITE
.........-
NEGRO
.....
GEORGIA
WHITE
. . . . . . . . . .. .
NEGRO
■-■•■•
LOUISIANA
WHIT(
. . . . . . . . . .. .
NEGRO
.....
MISSISSIPPI
WHITE
.......... .
NEGRO
.....-
NORTH CAROLINA
WHITE
...............
NEGRO
. . . . . . ..
SOUTH CAROLINA
■• 11111 . . . .
WHITE
NEGRO
1111 ■11 IIJI
■
.... .
EACH
IIJI
REPRESENTS 100 DOLLARS
AF-1564.W.P.A
SOURCE : FIFTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES : 1930, AGRICULTURE
Digitized by
Google
TENANT'S STANDARD OF LIVING
97
cotton States were unpainted frame dwellings.' Houses of this
type were most prevalent in Louisiana and Mississippi where they
consti tnted almost t'WO-thi rds of owners' houses and more than
four-fifths of tenants' houses. Ninety-three percent of the
Negro tenants in Louisiana lived in this type of dwelling.
Mississippi had the lowest proportion of painted frame houses,
followed by Louisiana, while North Carolina had the highest
proportion IAppenctix Table 44). Except for Arizona, where many
of the houses were adobes, fewer houses were painted in these
seven southeastern States than in any other State included in
the survey.
The highest proportions of log houses were in Alabama among
Negro owners and white tenants I approximately 7 percent I. Earth
huts were virtually absent in the South except anong Negro owners
in Mississippi (Appendix Table 441.
In none of the seven States under consideration was there an
appreciable number of tanners living in stucco, brick, stone,
or concrete dwellings. North Carolina with the highest proportion had only 1.9 percent of owners' and 0.6 percent of tenants'
homes of these types.
Size of Dwellings
With regard to adequacy of housing as measured by the size
of house and number of regular occupants per room, North Carolina
and South Carolina ranked highest with an average of about 5.7
rooms per ownerhouse,with 0.9 occupantperroom, and 4.5 rooms
per tenant house with about 1.2 occupants per room I Appendix
Tables 45 and 46 l. Arkansas had the fewest rooms per owner
dwelling and Mississippi the fewest rooms per tenant dwelling.
However, the number of regular occupants per ro0111 in each case
was not above the average for the seven States.
Negro tenants lived in the most crowded conditions in all
States except Mississippi, where Negro owners and white tenants
were somewhat more crowd.?d. For the seven States as a whole,
white owners' houses averaged 0.9 occupant per room; white tenants' houses, l.2 occupants; Negro owners', 1.2; and Negro tenants', 1.4 (Appendix Table 461.
North Carolina and South Carolina bad on the average the
largest number of bedrooms per house, and, with the exception
of tenants in Arkansas, the largest number of other rooms ,!Appendix Table 47 I. In all cases owners and tenants, white and
Negro, had more bedrooms per house than other rooms.
Ki rkpatrick 6 reports the average number of bedrooms per house
'ror
nu•ber or tar• bouaea aurTeJed, see Appendlz Table <&a.
6 11r1tpatrlclt, I. L., fhe 1cn••r's 8tCMdGrcl of l,hn11t, u. s. Depart•ent
Jcrlculture, Bulletin 1,ee, 1ne. p. 21.
Dig t1zed by
Google
or
98
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
for selected areas to be as follows: Southern States, 3.0;
Northern States, 3.3; New England States, 4.5.
Equipment of Owelltn~s
I11 all States in the Mutheastern cotton area the majority
of white owners reported screens, the highest proportion being
in Arkansa~ with 80.7 percent, the lowest in r,eorgia and Louisiana, with 59.6 and 59.4 percent, respectively IAppendi,r Table
481. In every State, Neyro tenants had the lowest percentaJ?e
of all groups reporting screens. In every State except Arkansas.
FIG.23
SCREENS AND SANITARY FACILITIES FOR
FARM HOU SES IN SEVEN SOUTHEASTERN COTTON STATES
1934
SCREENED
OWNERS
TENANTS
UNSCREENED
taI191Ji~H61a1§fl a Iu Iu Iu I
[SleiiO~olol6lol 6l 616l
ADEQUATE
SANITATION
INADEQUATE
OWNERS
TENANTS
EACH HOUSE EQUALS 10 PERCENT OF EACH GROUP SHOWN
AF-1563 .W PA.
SOURCE :FAR .. HOUSING SURVEY BY BU. OF HOME EC .• U.S. DEPT. OF AGR1.,ANO C.W.A.
screens were reported by less than one-fourth of the Negro tenants. The proportion of white tenants with screens was considerably greater. Negro owners reported more screens than Negro
tenants, but considerably fewer than white owners and tenants
!Figure 231.
Wells furnished a source of water forover 80 percent of both
owner and tenant dwell i.ngs in the cotton States !Appendix Table
491. About 60 percent reportet1 wells, dug or bored, and 20 percent reported wells, drilled or driven. A slightly higher proportion of owners than of tenants reported wells. This was due
primarily to the high percentage of white owners using wells in
two States, Alabama and South Carolina.
C1g1tzed by
Google
TENANT'S STANDARD OF LIVING
99
l!!!!!Bl!!!llowners
-Tenants
Percent
10
20
30
40
60
50
WHITES
Seven Co1ton States
Aloboma
Arkansas
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Corolina
NEGROES
Seven · Cotton Stotes
Alabama
Arkonsos
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
FIG. 24 - PERCENT OF FARM DWELLINGS IN SEVEN
SOUTHEASTERN COTTON STATES
WITHOUT SANITARY FACILITIES, 1934
Source: Farm Housing Survey by
Bureau af Harne Economics,
U.S.Department af Agriculture
in caaperatian with
Civil Works Administration
AF-1497,
WPA
Oigt1zedbyGooglc
100
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON TIIE COTTON PLANTATION
The use of spring water was rPported hy 11 percent of the
owners and 10 percent of the tenants in the cotton States. Six
percent of the owners' and four percent of the tenants' homes in
the seven Stateswereequippedwithcisterns (AppendixTable49).
The use of st ream water was reported for an average of less than
1 percent of the dwellings in the s':"ven States, the highest proportion reported being among Negro tenants in Louisiana. Nevertheless, true percentages may he higher in some States than the
survey data indicate. 0
The most critical problem related to southern rural housing
is the lack of sanitary facilities (Figures 23 and 24). The
data now available indicate the seriousness of conditions, not
only for Negroes and white tenants but for white owners as well.
Compared to other classifications, whitP. owners were somewhat
better off, hut 67 percent of them had only unimproved out houses
and 20 percent had no facilities whatsoever. Thus, 87 percent
of the white owners had available only the poorest of conveniences, or none at all (Appendix Table 50).
While 68 percent of the white tenants had only unimproved
outhouses, an additional 27 percent had no facilities. Among
the Negro owners 67 percent had unimproved outhouses with 29
percent having no facilities, while 67 percent of the Negro
tenants ha.d uniMproved outhouses and31 percent had no facilities.
The proportion of dwellings equipped with indoor flush toilets was 4.6 percent for white owners, 1.0 percent for white
tenants, 0.2 percent for Negro owners, and 0.1 percent for Negro
tenants. Practically no dwellings were equipped with indoor
chemical toilets, but a small percentage of the homes had improvP.d outdoor toilets.
OvP.r 90 percent of hoth ownP.r and tenant familiP.s cooked on
wood or coal stovec; !Appendix Table 51). Less than 8 percent
of owners' and 3 percent of tenants' homes were equipped with
kerosene or gasoline stoves. Few of the white owners and tenants used gas or electric stoves while snch stoves were not
found among Negroes, either owners or tena.nts, throughout the
cotton States.
For owners, a greater n11mher of stoves were reported than
there were houses surveyed. This duplication amounted to 3.5
percent of all owner dwellings, indicating more than one stove
Git should be noted that there ls a certain amount or dupllcatlon and o■ ls
slon involved ln the above rtgures, 2 percent more sources or water supply
belng reported ror owners than there were owner houses surveyed ln the
area. In Loulsianathere were 13 percent !!lore sources than tnere were users
who were reported. On the other hand, no State-except Loulslana and North
Carolina reported as ■any sources or water for tenants as there were tenant houses surveyed. In Arkansas, 9 percent or all tenants and 17 i,ercent
or Negro tenants gave no report on water supply. In Mlsslsslppl, 8 percent or all tenants and 11 percent or Negro tenants gaYe no report. It
■ay be assu111ed that so111e or these ramllles obtained water el tber rro■ 1tellll
or neighbors or rro■ streams.
DI I
zedbyGooglc
TENANT'S STANDARD OF LIVING
101
per house in soae instances. On the other hand, fewer s.toves
were reported tor tenants than there were tenant houses surveyed.
The scarcity of stoves was found only a110ng Negro tenants, chiefly in Mississippi, where over one-fourth reported no cooking
facilities. The proportions of Negro tenants without stoves
ia the other States were less significant.
CLOTHING
The clothiq of t~nant families is usually purchased annuall1
except tor odd ite•. This purchase is llade at "settling" time
it the cash is available to the tenants. It the tenant has made
no profit on his operations or it he is unable to obtain further
advance credit, his last year's wardrobe ■ust suffice. Clothing
purchased is of the coarsest, crudest character-denim overalls
for the male mellbets and cheap cotton foods for the female members. Brogan shoes, no socks, and h011elllade underwear, if any,
are the rule. Solletlaes the annual purchases for a large and
prosperous taaily rua as high as SlOO, or slightly 110re, bot
aore often the aaount is tar less (Table 381. Otten a lack of
sufficient warn clothing prevents children from going to school
and adults tr011 attending church or other public gatherings.
FOOD
Dietary standards of tenants are as low as housing standards.
It bas been pointed out that the averqe tenant lives on an advance of about Sl3 per aonth for two-thirds of the :,eai-. This
aaouat is adjusted by the landlord with some consideration for
the sbeof thetenaat'sfaaily,whichaverqes about4.4persons,
bat aore often the controlline factor is the a110unt which the
landlord can borrow to finance these advances, and the previous
record of the tenant in producing enough to repay these advances.
Not all of the Sl3 a aonth is used !or food, since such miscellaneous purchases as terosene,tobacco, aedicine, and clothing, which cannot be postponed, nst als9 be charged against
this SOIi.
A detailed exaaination of the co.issary accounts tor 25
Arkaasas tenants' in connection with the present su"ef gives
a eeaeral picture of the purchasing practices of tenants under
the sabsistence advance. Table 38 indicates by ite111S the outlay for food and the character of food item purchased. It lfill
be noted that only staple articles are parcba.~ed, flour, lard,
71zu1aat1oa or 115 acoouata
■1Sht be coasldered an 1naaequate baals tor
at11d7 wara lt not for tile fact tbft teauta• coanasna practices are ao
un1ro... tbroqboat tbe aoutb tbat tile ooaolualooa baaed on tbea, 25 caaea
would not be 1natU IIOdlfled lf a nob l•l'l•r auple nre taken.
Digr
zedbyGoogle
102
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
and meat accounting for most of the expenditures. The meat in
this ca~e is almost universally fat salt pork.
The most striking factor about these outlays is that no diminution uf the alllounts spent for food is reported for the summer
months when it would be possible to supplement the family table
with fresh vegetables. On the other hand, the reduction comes
in the winter months when the crops have been sold and the tenant is living largely on cash purchases which are usually of
the same type and P.rade as his credit purchases.
T,ol• J&--•~"UAL CCMIISSARY PIJlCHASl~ ~ 25 r['<ANIS ,~ ARKANSAS,
BY COMDIT IES, 193J
Cc,,r,oo, ty
Tot.JI fooc
Flour
l.dr;
...,,t
)u~..ir
Condi~nl5
Percent of foul Purchue
64.4
?J.3
12.1
9.1
5.5
5.4
2.5
I. 7
4.8
CL.Jth,n<J
\le.J,c ,ne
Tuli,..:.cu
V, :,...el I ,tno-:"\J\.I~ nvu'>ehol1 , ld'~
14.2
J.)
5.5
12.6
Gardens would, of course, he the best means of diversifying
the diet of the family, but the practice uf tending a garden is
foreign to the habits of most tenants. Since the garden is not
a shared operation, the only interest which the landlord has
io the tenant's garden is the extent to which the production of
foodstuffs will reduce the amount which he must lend the tenant
for subsistence. The landlord is, therefore, not always willing to advance money for seed and fertilizer or to provide for
the use of an animal for a tenant's garden. On the other hand,
many landlords who attempt to encourage gardening '1.lllong their
tenants meet with opposition bred by a lifetime of cultivating
only ·cot ton and corn. Gardens found on plantations in this
study were usually so poorly tended that the resulting small
production in most cases could hardly he assigned an appreciable
value in the tenant's budget. Under these circllllstances, the
canning of garden produce is very rare.
Aside from garden products, four field crops in the Sou th
can, and often do, contribute to the larder of the family. These
are corn, ground for meal; cane, ground for syrup; sweet potatoes; and cow peas. Since these crops are not so marketable
as cotton the landlord has no particular interest in financing
fertilizer purchases for them and consequently the yields are
usually low.
Dig tized by
Google
103
TENANT'S STANDARD OF LIVING
Uomestic anirnals can also contrihute to the diet of tenant
fa.rnilie:; to a much larger degree than they now do. "Table 39
inciicates the extent to whicli the tenants interviewed owned
domestic animals. Most of them had a few chickens, but there
l>cre some without eve11 thi.5 small stock. Flocks were so 1 imi ted
on the average that they could contribute little in the way of
either er.gs or meat to the family food supply . Pigs were reported by 80 percent of the tenants and the pork produced W/!3
or,e of the largest i tel'l.5 in the budget of home produced foods.
llowever, pork i:; perishable unless cured and stored with more
skill and e'luiprnent than is at the disposal of the average tenant.
Tablo J!>-NlMI!£•
~
COIS , PIGS , IICJ POULTRY R{P(JlTEO BY Pi.ANTATIOII FIIOILl(S, BY TENUIE, 1934
{Cotton Plantation [nU"'l!rat ionJ
Tet'lure
Fa,. i I ies
Fl'P port i ng Cows
Tl'.lt 11l
1-Fa~
~rce nt
ii i es
of
·--.
,
Tota l
Fa"' i I ie s
·--.
,
&v~r~oe
pl! !"
F11m i I ies
Fllrrii I ies
Rf-porting Pigs
cf1J~rr-.-
i 17 R~-
por ti ng
.
,._
,
Pigs
of
Tot ~l
f am i l i~s
--.
Perce nt
,
Total
l ,2S5 1, 341
55. l
5 , ldl
1
3 , 392
19. 1
12, 904
CrooPI!! ~
Otho!,. s M ,.e tf!Mnt
2, 686 I , J !O
45.4
2 .I J~
1. 291
1, 1".h
2
2
J
2 . 219
610
76 .9
!f> . 2
86 . 2
7, 6JJ
2,68'
2 ,S8 7
~"t• r
716
65)
5J0
50 7
74 , 0
71. G
56)
Re oo rt ing
Pou lt r w
A\te-reql!
per- Fa,,,_
ily ~porl i nq
'
J
'
5
.
,.__
,
~rc~t
of
Tot11I
fa1111 i l ies
Poul tr)"
·--.
per Fa-
,
Av-er&ge
il y Repor t i ng
J , 1115
89. 9
n.,10
20
2 , 5)1
671
62)
87 . 1
'6 .J'>I
17, )6 7
13 , 685
18
26
22
</3. 1
95.•
-
Conse'luently, the pork products are al.so usually consumed almost
entirely in the late fall and early winter months.
Jne of the mo:;t serious diet deficiencie:; in the South is
the ab3ence of milk and butter from the tables of a large proportion of the tenant faMilies. Only 55 percent of tenants had
cows, a great proportion not · having the knowledge or the energy
to care for these animals or the nnney to purchase them. For
those families who do have cows, milk is, ol course, one of the
chief items of home production.
Fewer croppers reported livestock and those with livestock
had smaller numbers than was the case with other tenant groups.
Only 45 percent of the croppers reported cows in comparison with
74 percent of the other share tenants and 78 percent of the
renters. Not only did fewer croppers have piP,s but they averaged
only three pigs per family while other share tenants reported
four and renters five (Table 391.
There is some indication from the_ 1935 Agricultural. Census
tQ add somewhat to the p roducA. A-~
~1-a tonEC~rf t of µi~
~onior home use in the South. It is impossible at this date
to say whetller-tTiisaO'ersrlication has taken place primarily
among the owners. There was substantial increase in the Southeast from 1930 to 1935 in the number of cattle and swine on farms. 8
e~
_J ~
~as-
DI I
zf>dbyGoogle
104
LANDLORD AND TBNANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
This ca111e about largely because the acreage retired froa cotton
production was available for pasture and h011e use production,
undoubtedly increasing the land used !or feed and forage crops
and for grazing.
The 111easurement of the nutritional valueso! the aeager tenant diet has not been carried out on an extended scale. No
adequate study has been 111ade covering a large segment of the
South nor comparing the South to other areas. One study based
on a small number of representative families in Mississippi 8
indicates that these families were provided with scarcely 110re
than the actually necessary quantitiesofprotein and phosphorus. Calcium was well provided I. 69 grams used as standard I;
iron was not provided in sufficient quantities; vitaain A and
B requirements were probably met, and vitamin C was perhaps low
in the !all, winter, and early spring.
COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Co111111unication facilities form one of the best indices for
comparing relative standards of living. In 2eneral,telepbones,
automobiles, and magazines are found to be least c01a0n in sections of the South with high percentages of !ant tenancy. Table
40 indicates the lack of such modern methods of coaunication
in the areas surveyed.
Taole 40-T[NAIICY, TEL[FliON[S, PASS[NG[ij CARS, AHO IIAGAZINES, BY AREAS.• 1930
--------==cc-~~~-=
Persons per
~at100~1-::Jal1ne
Perc~il
Inn.Joi lant!I>
lnhi'101 ttlnl~ per
h.-<1,V'ICy
per Tcl~pnu11e
Pilssen~er Cdr
Nortnern Col ton am.1 foo,ltcob
S6
Soutnem Cotton dinu Toodl.c.oc
Upper Pi ed'nonld
81 ack Belt
Del ta
60
~)
61
41
55
68
10
H
ID
tJ
18
23
16
21
25
M
32
38
9
12
10
14
20
17
20
23
Area
63
73
90
u
'ilu~le Snotlls.
lr,ter1or Pidtn
61
74
79
M1s!>1s!>ipp1 Bluth
Reu k1 ... ~r
•oa1• 'or u,.. a,unM~ ••"'•r
tt•ortr>c!ir" ,.r, or Al l•nt
,c
•n•<'I
nol
Co,nt ,ta
c5outtwn, parl of Atl•nt,c Coa~t
%
13
l•Dul.tl•d.
,n.
,1.,n.
dCotton H<t ion.
Source:
Woofter. 1. J., Jr,, ~,,.., :.uonr91on1ro ot tne- Sovlht'.1~t•, .1ociui ,ore••• octoDer ttJ•. Vol. IJ, ,,. a1-1t.
In the Red River area, an area with a particularly high rate
of tenancy, the median county had only l telephone for every
96 inhabitants. On the other hand, in the Muscle Shoals area
with the lowest percentage of tenancy, the median county had
1 telephone for every 26 inhabitants. The numberof inhabitants
9
01cken11, Dorothy, A 3 tudy of ,ood. Rabi h of P•opie '" f1IJ0 Co"trasU"f Areu
of Jtisshsippi, N1111111!1111pp1 .Agricultural Elper1 ■ent 8t&tlOD, llulletln 246,
Non■ber
1927.
C1g1tzed by
Google
TENANT'S STANDARD OF LIVING
105
per passenger car varied less widely than the number per telephone but even so, the number of automobiles tended to be most
limited in high tenancy areas. National magazines were rare in
all areas but particularly so in the Delta and Red River areas
with 90 and 79 percent of tenancy, respectively, as the county
medians.
HEALTH
The effects of low income with attendant poor housing and
meager diet are evident when measures of health are applied to
the cotton tenant household. The lack of screening facilitates
the spread of malaria; the primitive water supply and sanitary
facilities contribute to typhoid epidemics. The lack of balance
in the diet is a major factor in the incidence of pell<'.gra, a
disease almost entirely confined to the poor classes in the
South. Inadequate food also contributes to digestive disorde:-s.
The close relation between inadequate income and malada
mortality is indicated by a study of the data for 14 southern
States 10 in 1933, 11 North Carolina was the only State studied
which did not show a significant increase in malaria mortality
from 1932 to 1933. The authors of the report, while recognizing the lack of specific evidence, suggest that "the depression,
which, in its general impoverishment and degradation of the
population, has had no equal since malaria has been recognized
as a public health problem in our midst, is probably the most
important contributory factor.•
Appendix Table 52 and Figure 25 show the incidence of deaths
from typhoid and paratyphoid, pellagra, and malaria in the rural
sections of the seven southeastern cotton States.· These figures
do not apply strictly to tenants since they include the whole
rural population-owners, tenants, and inhabitants of small
towns. Also, since they are based entirely on deaths they do
not take into account the great losses due to non-fatal illnesses.
They do indicate, however, that the cotton States have the burden of a typhoid and paratyphoid death rate that is twice the
national average, and of pellagra and malaria death rates that
are more than three times the national average. The incidence
of these diseases, as measured by death rlltes, varies widely
within the cotton States.
The high Negro death rate has been attributed largely to ignorance and this is undoubtedly a major factor, but the unhygienic
10.t.labama, Arkansas, r1orlda, Osorgla, 1entuck7, Loutslana, Ktsstsstppt,
Mlsaourl, 11ortb carouna, Oklahoma, South Carouna, Tennessee, Texas,
and Ylrgtnla.
11 raust, E. C. and Dtboll, Celeste O., •Kalarta Mortallt7 ln the Southern
United States ror the Tear 1933•, fhe Sovthen1 Nedkal Journal, August
1936, Yol, 28, pp, 767-783,
Dig,
zedbyGoogle
106 LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
living conditions, many of which are dictated to the tenant by
the system, must also be assigned a major portion of the blame.
FIG.25
RURAL DEATH RATE FROM SPECIFIC DISEASES
IN SEVEN SOUTHEASTERN COTTON, AND ALL OTHER STATES- 1950
TYPHOID
SPARATYPHOID l!IIIIW~llll!!ll!!~~;,J
:
h,
It '
I
COTTON STATES
~1:,b:~
MALARIA~
~ R STATES
-1u:n,......,.1,Z.,..h,:.,.,r..,,::--:::._.,_,,,.%!1,Z►=k~
COTTON STATES
EACH SYMBOL EQUALS ONE DEATH
PER 50,000
AF·1565 ,W.P.A.
SOURCE: MORTALITY STATISTICS 193O,US BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
In the face of such obstacles public health campaigns cannot
progress until fundamentals of planut ion farming are so altered
as to provide a better level of living for tenants.
Cigt
zedbyGoogle
Chapter VIII
MOHILITY
The tenure system in the Cotton South is chara£terized by a
high rate of mobility among farmers, especially croppers. Every
year thousands of cotton tenant tamers place their household
goods and other belongings in wagons and trucks and move on to
other quarters. Sometimes the destination is another farm at
no great distance; sometimes it is a nearby village or town
where the tenant expects to engage in industrial activities;
and in some instances the move involves a greater distance, as
in the case of southern Negroes migrating to northern industrial
centers.
The one-crop system, characteristic of a great portion of
the area, is an influencing factor.
The low educational and
occupational standards of the region probably account for some
of the "shiftlessness" which is associated with the tenant farmer continually on the move. Low economic standards unquestionably drive some farmers to and fro in search of some way to eke
out a more desirable living for themselves and their families.
As a result of these and other factors, three types of movements of farmers and wage hands are relatively frequent and
subject to analysis: Ill from one farm to another; (21 from
one status to another within agriculture; and 131 from rural
areas to town and back.
It must be borne in mind in interpreting the facts in this
chapter that the farmers who move to town and remain there do
not enter into this study, as the survey was based entirely on
reports from families then residing on farms.
MOVEMENT FROM FARM TO FARM
The high rate of mobility from farm to farm among southern
farnters, especially tenant farmers, has caused much concern to
those who consider stability of residence a condition necessary
to successful farming, long-time community relationships the
basis for a secure society, and wise use of the land insurance
against destruction of the Nation's natural resources.
The
nature of farming is such that the farmer must spend several
Years in developing the property he has bought or rented and
must give constant attention to the farm if its productivity
is to be fully developed and maintained.
The farmer who is
107
D1gt1zedbyGoogle
108 LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
continually on the move cannot systematically care for fruit
trees, shrubbery, and other long-lived vegetation. If he expects to move again soon, he does not find it to his advantage
to build fences, to construct drains and terraces, to sow perennial grasses, and to turn under cover crops to conserve and
build up the soil. It is difficult for the mobile farmer to
provide and care for livestock. Further, it seems that mobility
begets more mobility. Because of his apparent instability it
becomes increasingly difficult for a mobile farmer to obtain
credit facilities to carry out his business operations. Social
relations are also continually disrupted a.q farm families move
from community to community. 1
Whereas excessive mobility of farmers is associated with
these disastrous effects, excessive stability may also prove
to be harmful to society and to the individual farmer. Lack
of mobility of fann populations restricts the outlook to the
small horizon of the immediate community and creates resistance
to the infiltration of new ideas and behavior patterns. Low
mobility may signify an unhealthy indifference to opportunities
for individual advancement or it may indicate the existence of
a system which impedes free movement.
Between the two extremes lies the more judicious course: the
amount of mobility necessary for the successful orientation of
the farmer and the amount of stability necessary for him to
build a productive farm unit. A certain amount of mobility from
farm to farm is a part of the normal life process of the farmer
in getting onto the land and becoming initiated into his vocational setting. It seems probable that with farm owners, with
tenants who later are to become owners, and in many instances
with permanent tenants, one to three moves are often necessary
in making the adjustments incident to determining the size and
type of farm suited to their needs and capacities.
That mobility among farmers, especially tenants, is related
to the changing size of the family has been emphasized in the
following words: 2
The young tenant farmer and his wife make a few
moves in their early life, many shifting from farming to other occupations, then back to farming in
an attempt, supposedly, to improve their living conditions. These inter-occupational changes generally involve territorial changes. They occur,
1W1ll11111s, B. 0,, OccupaHonal llobOHJ Gaont ,ana11rs, Part I, "110b111ty
Patterns•, Agricultural Experi11ent Station, Clemson, south Carollna, Bulletin 296, 1936, p. 16 rt.
2will1as, B. o., Social Nobility and il• Land 1enur11 Prob le•, unpublished
■ anuscript read before Southern
Sociological Society, 4tlanta, Georgia,
APrU 18, 1936, pp. 6-1!.
D1gt1zed!:JyGoogle
MOBILITY
109
generally speaking, in those areas where are found
villages and towns having occupations that are freely interchangeable with farming, such as the cotton
mills of the industrial regions.
Later on in life, when the children of the tenant family begin to mature and are able to carry
on the work of the farm, other moves are made so
as to obtain a larger farm. It may be that the tenant farmer will move one, two, or three times in
response to the increasing size of his family. At
a later period the children begin to leave the parental home and to enter their own occupations.
This results in the tenant renting a smaller fann,
in response to the decreasing size of his family.
After the children have all left home, the farmer
and his wife, being old and unable to carry on the
physical demands of farm labor, find it necessary
to move about as the occasion may demand.
Mobility or stabi 1i ty may be measured in several ways, as
indicated in Table 41. The farming history of all families included in the survey that were able to furnish reliable data8
was recorded.
These indices, the length of residence on the farm on which
the fa111ily was located in 1934, the total number of fanrs which
the family had occupied since farm life began, and the average
length of residence per farm occupied indicate the greater mobility of white tenants than of Negro and greater mobility of
wage hands and croppers, with increasing stability as the higher·
tenure classes are attained. The columns showing age of farmers and average length of time in farming indicate that with
the exception of wage hand families these factors are not sufficiently different by tenure status to account for the variations in mobility.
All families had averaged 8.2 years of residence on the farm
where they were living in 1934 (Table 411. They bad 1i ved on
an average of 3.8 farms with an average residence per farm of
5.9 years, thus accounting for their average of 22 years of
far111ing experience. The fact that the residence on the 1934
!am is longer than the residences on previous farms indicates
two possibilities, vtz., that as the tenants approach maturity
they tend to become more stable, and that these plantations,
8-uaber or 7eara on present raras was based on 5,0..9 ra■ 117 schedules: 799
lfhite, 4,250 Negro; 846 lf&ge hands, 2,848 croppers, 708 otbar abare tenants, M8 renters. Otber 1teu in tbe table 1tere based on 4,718 replies:
718 lfbltea, S,986 Jfecroea; 777 lf&&e bancls, 2,ee2 croppers, &17 otber share
tenenta, 827 renters.
Dig tized by
Google
110
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
representing as they do the better cotton lands, are more desirable to the tenant~ and they stick to these places longer.
The obverse of this process is that landlords of the better
plantations can pick and choose their tenants and that after a
process of trial and error the landlords of the plantations surveyed had built up a tenant personnel with which they were satisfied. In other words, a factor in the stability of a tenant
on a plantation is his willingness to stay, modified by the
landlord's willingness to keep him.
T,ble 11-LI•r.1)4 OF Fli>II q[51DE•CE r:T PLUTATIO,, FAMILIES RY COL()q, 9Y l9'll T£•L•ll£ STATUS,
BY AGE, ••o ~y LE•r.TH or Fl!llll'G E•PERIE~CE
(Cotton P1,nt,t,on (nument,on)
Aven~e
1cnd Tf"nure St.ius .1.1nd Color
Nufl'lber
of Yeus
.Yh1 te
Ne<JrO
W1Je r lndS
l#h I te
llie~ro
CrotJpers
White
Negro
Other st-.tre ten1nts
Renters
Mli te
N~ro
....., on• total of I.Ho f•iliH.
bs1nce react11n9 11 ,...,. of aoe.
Aven-,e
Numbe-r of
Yf'Ho; on
Aver.. ge
'-U"Cer
of F,tr·nts
L,ved onb
I
Avenqe
Number
of Ye<!.rS
21
•o
71
II
8.~
4. 3
3. 7
.
IS
I?
16
33
f ••
3.?
•• 8
•1
33
4.3
3.3
6.7
3.2
n
19
n
Al
6.9
•O
'.7
7 ••
,,.o
II
22
Al
29
A7
43
A8
71
17
?A
28
47
?8
2,
M'ti te
frile,gro
He&ci
8
~.2
•. 9
F,.--a
Tot 11
Aver.,,ge
Age of
"
ll~4
r1r·"'
-
1.8
..
'.0
11.2
7 .?
3. 7
1.2
12.6
~- !
12 .B
9.2
3. 3
•.3
13. 7
3.1
oer Farm
5.9
-~
6.1
3.6
.
5.0
•••·'
5.6
7 ••
5.7
8.?
B.?
5.1
9.0
D•h •r• not auil•I• for 111 f • i l i u .
When race differences are considered, it is evident that
white tenants are more mobile than Negroes. White tenants had
lived on the 1934 farm 5.9 years while Negro tenants had lived
on the 1934 farm 8.6 years. White tenants had averaged 4.3
different farm residences and Negro tenants 3.7. The average
number of years of residence per farm was 4.a for white tenants
and 6.1 for Negroes.
CHANGE IN RESIDENCE BY STATUS
Another trend apparent in the statistics of farm residence
in Table 41 is the tendency to stabilize with rise in tenure
status. This is to some extent associated with increasing age
and with the acquisition of property. The average age of wage
hands in the study was 33 years, of croppers 41 years, and of
other share tenants and renters 47 years. This difference accounts for the smaller number of farms which wage hands had
lived on but is not sufficient to account for other differences
in mobility among the tenure classes. The increase in stability
D1·1•zedbyLoog(e
HOB IL I TY
111
is notable in Table 41 with respect both to length of residence
on the fam occupied in 1934 Md average residence on all fams.
Wii.ge hands had lived 6.5 years on the 1934 farm, croppers 6.9
years, other share tenants 11.2 years, and renters 12.8 years.
On all farms the average years of residence had been 4 .8 for
wage hands, 5.4 for oroppers, 7.5 for other share tenants, and
8.2 for renters. Facts confirming these trends in mobility i.·ere
obtained from 1,830 South Carolina farmers in a study made in
19334 ITllble 421 .:tnd from studies of tenants in Alabama 5 in
1933 and in North Carolina in 1934. 6
The study under immediate consideration did not obtain mobility data for owners.
Other studies have shown that the
changes in residence of tenants and wage hands have been considerably greater thM those of owners. The study of 1,830
South Carolina farmers shows thllt white owners made an averll~e
of 2.9 changes in residence during the period of employment
covered, as compared with 5.6 changes made by white tenants.
Among Negroes a similar difference appeared, Negro owners making an average of 3.0 changes and Negro tenMts making an average of 4 .6 changes (Table 421. In other words, on the basis
of the number of years employed, white owners had moved about
once in every 11 years and white tenants about once in every
4 years, Negro owners every 12 years and Negro tenants every
5 or 6 years: White owners were only 67.percent as mobile and
Negro owners only 70 percent as 111obile as the entire group,
while white tenants were 30 percent more mobile and Negro tenants 7 percent more mobile than the total families studied
(Table 421.
The difference in the degree of mobility between tenants
and owners, whether white or Negro, is even greater than the
llbove data indicate, owing to the age factor a.nd to the average number of years employed. The age of white owners averaged
54.5 years as compared with 45.5 years for white tenants. The
average ages for Negro owners and tenants were 55 .0 yea.rs and
48.5 years, respectively.
Directly related to this is the
4 conducted by B. o. Williams tor the South Carolina E.1per1ment Station,
C1e111son, South Carolina, 1n cooperation w1 th the C1 v11 Works, Emergency
Reuer, and Works Progress Adlll1n1strat1ons.
A 5 percent sample, based
on color and tenure or tie tan1ers, was taken 1n eight counties representIng the •aJor son and type-ot-tarm1ng areas. Cases were selected by townships 1n the eight countl8a on a proport1on~te basis, according to the 1930
Census. The data were collected by the schedule method, visits being made
to each lndlv1dua1 tal'ller. The tollowtng counties were represented ln the
saaple:
Cha.rfeaton, Chester, Darlington, Greenville, H8111pton, Saluda,
Spartanburg. and Williamsburg. All the south Carolina data reterred to In
thls chapter are unpublished material from this study.
5 Hottso. . er, Harold, Land l~d-1'enant Re le.Hons and Re lief in, laba.a, F. E. R.A.
Research Bulletin Serles II, Mo. 9, November 1936.
11
Unpubllahed study or rural ru111es on reuer tn 1934 tn Morth Carolina
conducted~ Gordon Blackwell td'r the North caroUna £.R • .&. Sallple counties
were AJ.er&nder, Bertie, Colu~bua, Greene, Iredell, Onslow, Stoltea, Tyrell,
and W&ablngton, tbe •ountstn regton betng excluded.
Digitized by
Google
112
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
longer averilge period of employment for owners than for tenants
ITilble 421.
The fact t h-'it white owners and Negro owners had made about
the s-'lme number of moves is associated with the !act that they
were of the same average age and had been employed approximately
the same number of years.
Table 42-CHANG[S IN RESIOCNCE• ~ 1,830 SOOTH CAROLINA FARM£RS, BY Nl.t,IBER ~ l()VES MAOC,
BY 1q33 TE"-JRE Al() BY COLOR
NL.fflber of Move~
Owners
Tt!n.int s
Total
O•ner~
Tenants.
40
AS
140
155
100
S?
106
71
66
17
15
6
100
q7
8J
60
17
\7
6
57
701
152
10A
160
1•1
liJl
06
6
65
IA
,,
7
q
57
70
1
1•
9
10
J7
15
1
)4
2
13
41
27
15
l•
11
17
n
14
1~
1q
)1
5
1
13
10
0
s
1
0
Q
7
11
5
10
14
16
17
\q
7
7
0
1
1
19
1
20
1
0
0
0
21
1,7RA
Tot 11 nl.lf,Ler of
1. 810
91
f,(J
31
3
32
2
21
14
1
8
4
9
4
0
0
0
J
0
t
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
4
3
1
3
I
1
0
0
I'
t
'31__
J
0
4, A40
1
1.,,,.,,.
JS
?3
15
--- -
0
--+-----+-
nl.KT'ber of
~
0
0
>?
Tot.JI
Negro
White
Total
l,
1. 0<6
515
784
-j-- ~62 _
fi22
I
Aver..t-:JC n...,,t,~r
of"''""'
'·'--~
,.2
2.q
-~·F;___ 11 _
4.1
-~~.n
4,6
lnae-. number of
?~:;::;;;,•. - ,:: _j ,::
,:: . ,~';- ,:~ ~-4-~:_--_- - ~L--_--_ 2:~~--_~:
[wer, hri-..r ••• 9,ven crPdtl ror ont> IIQv• •,.." r,11 ent•..-~ eaplo,-nt enicn 9en•r111, 1nvoh·eO lea¥in9 UIII
pari,~tal '11•dr.
,,. • rtt• ,n~u,ncf'I, lhf' ,nd,v,Cl'ual re,.,nec, in tr.e 1H1rent1I re,.dr, t11i1t r,e ••• g,-,en
credit for o"• •ow nev•rthele11.
bTl'I• •"'•'•9• n111m•r or
Source:
■o"'••
•d•
r,,
the 1.00 hr•rs i i t•llen •• 100.
Wr>putol,s!Wd data,,_ studr condl.l(led ;,.. eigflt r•,r11Mr>leti"'e hr••"9 co..oo,t1e1 top lh• Sowtll C•rollna
(aper,•nl ll•l•on ,., coo~rat,on ••lh the c ••. ,., (.I.A., and••'·"·
The theory that ownershipof farm land acts as a stabilizing
influence, tending to bind or tie the farmer to the land, is
given further weight by data from the South Carolina study
assembled in Tables 43 and 48. They show that whereas white
owners had spent 71 percent of their employed years as owners
(Table 481, they had made only 39 percent of their total moves
in the owner status (Table 431. The 18 percent of their employed years which they had spent as tenants included 39 percent of the moves m-'ide. Obviously much of their moving had been
done before they entered the owner status. On the other hand
C1g1tzed by
Google
MOBILITY
113
white tenants had spent 75 percent of their employed years as
tenants ITable 481, and had made 77 percent of their total moves
in the tenant class !Table 431. This indicates not only that
white tenants tended to remain in the tenant statu~ but ab~o
that most of the; r moving was done as tenants. Moreover, it
seems probable that tenants tend to move at a similar rate
Table 43-0iANGES IN RESID£NCE Of l,BJO SOUTH CAROLINA FARIERS, BY OCCIJPATION,
BY 1933 TENURE, Al() BY COLOR
19JJ
N..-r
Tenure
of
and Color
Farmers
6n
515
162
1. 153
531
622
Ooners
•hi te
Negro
Tenants
While
~gro
So.rce;
Number
of Moves
Yade
Percent of Moves Made as
Total
0.ner
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
l.97J
1,,01
492
5,811
2.959
2
.•52
36.8
J9.J
29.1
2.1
3.5
o. 7
Fam,
Ma~ger
0.9
1.2
Ten.,nt
-
39.5
39.5
,2. 7
O.J
o. 7
11.,
-
Hired
lion
6.•
J.8
1'.2
6.9
3,5
10.,
79.4
81.'
No~
F.armi"'::)
16.,
17.2
1,.0
11.3
14.9
7.5
Uflputll1sPl.-d data rroa stlldy cortOucttcl 1n eiQht repr•Mntat•v• hr•ing counties by Uw Sout~ CArolina
(11;peri-nt St•tlOf'I In COOPf!f&\ion ei\rl l"- C.W,A., [.t,A., and"·'·"·
throughout their employed years while owners definitely move
less as they grow older.
Comparable data for Negro farmers also indicate that owners
did most of their moving before attaining ownership status,
while fo!" tenants the proportion of employed years spent as tenants 185 percent I corresponded closely to the proportion of total moves made while in the tenant class 181 percent).
Table U-NUIB[R Of FAINS LIVED ON, NWBER OF YEARS FARMED, ANO NUM!lER Of OOCNTl[S LIVED IN BY
~O~TH CAROLINA FARII FAUi LiES ON RELIEF IN 193', BY IE~URE STATUS
Tenure
St Hus
Tot,.!
Sm,11 hrm ownersc
l?unl
hO"'e owners::I
Tenants J.nd fum loiborers
"'umber of
Counties lived In
Numoer
Avenge
of
F'ami I ies
kul'lber of
F.ums lived On
YP-1rs F;\rmed
Av~r<1qe
1.~1~•
,.1
1-21
14.? 0
1.3'
1-6
?01
7. 7
18. I
2.9
4.6
14.A
I. 17
I. 17
1-6
271
1-1'
I-IS
1-?l
13.S
t.•7
1-5
1,0,3
Aver,ge
R.nge
Nurtt>er of
R:i~~=--
I-•
•0111 not -•11:i.:ilr. for II of U•t" 1.!tl) c,ues •11-ratN.
0
1,n.-d o" cl.al.a for 1.17) ,.,.!oil'~.
,.,.,1,
co_,,,.~ 10 or "'C,rc cwlt•v-111:>III' •c.rt11 ••l"
of Sor I••• ~D•rs, or IS or aor•
cv11, .. 1ol• .acr•'.. ••l!'•
cf, or sc-rll' "'-tl•rs.
ll'ld, ,s • t .. nct10rial oer1n1l1on
-,10,H ,., "'f'•.!o.1flf''1 , .. 11.-0.J,t.11,o" ne•th """ c111p101lolies.
dO.-n1ng 1
o .. t not .,..,.., 9 P\ cult,.,101• l11\d to Df' cl11,s1f1ed 1s 1 ""•11 ,.,,. o•ner ~ccord1t1; to t"'e d1Pfit1ition aoo••·
,..,,1,
"°'"'"
,or th• ■ ortri
~.,,.t.,IP count,•~ ••re Ale•,'lt•dl!'r. l•rti•. Coli,No:>us. li,reirnt'. lr.0.-11. Or>1lo•. Sto•e1, Tyrrell,
Unput1J15l'>t-(I data fro" Slud7 or lh,r.al ••I••' ,_.,11., in •ortfl CaroliflA OJ Cordol'I llac:11-11
C.irol,n.a l. •. ,.
Af'IO 111Alhol'l~ton.
th•
-<11,1nl 1il'I rt'iiOl'I beit1~ .- ■ cludPO.
Blackwell's study of 1,533 rural re~ief ca~es in North Carolina, selected as capable of rural rehabilitation, also shows
that tenants are more mobile than owners. Tenants and farm laborers covered in the study had lived on an average of 4. 6 farms
as compared with 2.9 farms for rural home owners and 2.7 farms
for small farm owners (Table 441. The cases were not selected
as belonging to the plantation pattern, being distributed over
Dig1
zed by
G oog e
114 LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
nine counties ot North Carolina and representing all types of
farming areas of the State except the Appalachian region. Their
11obili ty rates are not directly comparable to those of the plantation families because relief families have been found to have
higher mobility rates than non-relief. 7
The relatively high rate of mobili iY among tenant famers,
as compared with owners, in the Cotton South is undoubtedly tied
up with the system of land renting. The nature of the one-crop
system and the credit structure have already been described
(chapters IV and VI. The lack of written contract between tenant
and landowner, and the fact that the tenant has no legal claim
and receives no recompense for improvements he may make on the
property, deprive the cotton tenant farmer of that incentive
which leads to stability. But even though the tenant remains
T•ble (5--0ISTANCE ~ I.IOV[S MAJ)[ RY 1,BJO SOUTH CAROLINA FARM[RS, BY COLOR, ANO BY !OJJ T[Nl,11(
- - - ---Color
-
NLPber
of
Farnier~
and
Tenure
--- -~
~~
- ~ ---------
.
--
-
e~
Nl.lnber and Proportion t.t>v,ng Spec if ie:1 Di~t:,nce
.......
cent
oer
Ct!nt
5,0?8
A,.,
516
85.2
fJl.Z
57
_
-
Per-
t.er
1,A30
5,95(
100.0
Tenc1,nt
515
531
2, (2R
A?,
1m.o
100.0 I. ••6
Negro
Owner
Terldnt
fv?
310
?,210
1no.n
1no.o
16?
<>1;6
bcount)' ,n •""" tne
,. ,_, ... ,
Sourc•:
1.,1 ... frCJl'II
~,cclYdes uni!!' t!'nlrancP IN)¥P
Unpi,bll'I~
l•pPr1-nt Sli.l ior,
j 1, ?R<lJrJ
0
,, ...
Other South
(drol ind County
AdJ01n1ng
-~ounty
.......
ber
Tol,il
-
W1 thin
~ounty 0
PerCt!nl
White
O.ner
------
.
Tot,1,I
Mo-.ie> 4
Other
,-- -State
·-ber
cent
A. 7
IU
2.,
15,
2.6
112
1.9
5.9
11.5
14
65
J.5
2. 7
?J
O?
2 ·'
3.~
2'l
ZRO
,s
J.O
I.A
q7_ 6
7
""· ~
?. \
7. 7
10
J~
3.0
1.6
A
JI
2.,
1.,
16
172
n
C.9
1.0
~
-
M101 n, n~
St.ite
- -- •-
....
P~r-
Pt!r-
·-ber
Percent
·-ber
cent
Per-
ror P:.cn tar-r.
l1¥1n,1
•:.tw,
I
conou<t ,. '1
I'°
\1,1fvf't
,n e• •J"t
tn coopl!'r .. t ,on ••tr1 tnl!'
•11'5 -di!'
{19H).
... ,.. /Ind"·"·'·
r•prpo; ,. nlrt,vt.o
c.11., .•
[
f1
'"''"9
count
111!''1
,,
the South carol ina
relatively fixed, he is handicapped so far as developing his
property is concerned, for his agreement with the landlord often
reqnires him to devote a high proportion of his land to cotton.
If the tenant is to be encouraged to remain on one farm and
to conserve and develop the soil, his lease should be drawn up
in snch a way as to reward him formaking pemanent and durable
improvements on the land and buildings and other non-movable
fixtures about the premises. Perhaps a flexible lease would be
desirable and might be drawn up in terms of 1, 3, 5, or 10 years.
Certainly the lease should state explicitly the basis for dividing and allocating the rewards for pemanent and durable improvements; it should prescribe the conditions upon which rent
is to be paid; and it should be entered into as between the
lessor and the lessee with a clear and full understanding of
the rights and responsibilities of each.
115
MOBILITY
DISTASCE OF MOVES
In spite of their frequent moving, fewof the South Carolina
fanners had moved great distances. Out of a total of 5,954
moves made by the 1, 830 f anners, 84. 4 percent were made within
the county in which the farmers were living in 19~3 (Table 151.
The proportions of moves made within the county are fairly consistent for the different tenure groups. However, the highest
percentage was for Negro tenants, 88.3 percent of their naves
having been made within the county. Similarly, Negro owners
had made 87.6 percent of their moves within the county. The
proportion of moves made within the county was lowest for1vhite
tenants, 80,2 percent. White owners had made 85.2 percent of
their moves within the county.
Although the white tenants had made the highest proportion
of moves outside the home county of any of the te1111re group
119.8 percent I, most of these moves were made to an adjoining
cnnnty 111.5 percent I.
Blackwell's study in North Carolina shows similar results.
~'ew of these farm families had moved great distances. While
these were relief families believed capable of rehabilitation,
yet there is reason to believe that they were somewhat representative of their respective groups. Table 44 indicates that
these farmers and farm laborers had lived on fanns in less than
one and one-half counties, on the average, during their years
of employment.
CHANGE Of,' STATUS
Movements within the farming occupation can be either up or
down the agricultural ladder, upward as defined in this survey
meaning the gradations from wage hand to share-cropper, to share
tenant, to renter, to owner. Each of these grades generally
means some advance over the one before it, in income, in working conditions, or in property status. Hen:e movement up this
ladder usually spells a certain degree of progress for the farmer, while movement down the ladder means that he is probably
losing ground. Rapid progress from share tenant to farm owner
may indicate, however, merely that the erstwhile tenant has saddled himself with debt, and that with hard times he may return
to his former status.
NUllber
or
Years in 1934 Tenure Status
In tracing the progress of plantation families up or down
the agricultural ladder the average time that the families had
remained continuously intheirl934 tenure status was first determined !Table 461. Taking all groups, the families had been
Dig t1zed oy
Google
116 LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
engaged continuously for an average of 12. 5 years in the status
they occupied in 1934. Renters and other share tenants, the
groups with the highest average number of years in agriculture
(Table 41), had been in their 1934 tenure status for the longest periods of time, followed by share-croppers and wage hands.
In all groups, the average number of continuous years in the
1934 status accounted for at least half of the total number of
years employed in agriculture.
The number of heads of plantation families who had farmed in
tenures or classes other than those occupied in 1934 and the
number of years spent in each previous status a'l"e shown in
Table 47.
Table •6-IUIIER CE COIITINUOOS YUl!S SPENT IN 193, ITNI.IIE STATUS BY PLANTATION FAMILIES,
BY 193' ITNLIIE STATUS, ANO BY COi.al
(Cotton P1""ntat inn Enufll!'rat ionJ
1934 T"nun~
Stlltus an:t Color
Tot•l
Total Fa,,.i I ies
Reporting•
White
5,001
788
Negro
,,213
••g• hands
Average Nunoer of Cont i nuous
Years in 19)4 Tenure Status
12.S
10.1
1J.O
828
8.1
6.4
Megr-o
82
7•6
Croppers
2,816
White
,os
1J.1
9.9
Negro
2,'11
1).6
712
1).8
11. 7
1'.S
'#hite
Other share tenants
White
180
Negro
532
Renters
White
Negro
6'5
121
s2,
a.,
14.S
11,2
15,2
Almost two-thirds 163 percent) of the 1934 cropper families
had at some time been wage hands and had worked in that status
an average of 6 years; 22 percent had worked as other share
tenants, for an average of 9 years; 18 percent had been renters
for an average of 8 years; and less than 3 percent of the croppers had been fat"TII owners for an average of 11 years (Table 471.
The trend in mobility was therefore up the ladder, 63 percent
of the share-croppers having come up from the status of wage
hands, as against 43 percent moving down from other tenures.
The fact that almost three-fourths of all plantation families
were share-croppers or wage hands seems to indicate the difficulty of ascending the agricultural ladderunder·the plantation
system.
Half of the other share tenants had risen from the status of
wage hands and three-fifths had formerly been croppers. Onefourth had dropped from the status of renter and about 4 percent
from the status of owner.
D1·1•zedbyGoogle
Table '7-NIJ,tBER OF YEARS FARMED IN EACH TENUIIE STATUS BY HEADS OF PUIITATION FAAIILIES, BY 193,4 TENURE STATUS ANO BY COLOR
(Cotton Plantation Enl.lllerationJ
Previous Tenure Status
All Heads of
Fami 1 i~s
I ~ Tenure ::itatus
Wage Hands
Average
N.ber
""''""
of Years
N.ber
Per-
Nuo,..
Per-
cent
of Years
ber
cent
of Years
Fanned
ber
Percent
Fanned
Percent
Nuober
of Years
Fanned
3,929
77.3
13
1,533
30.1
II
1,406
27.6
12
134
2.6
11
813
4,272
20
22
488
2,968
60.0
69.5
6
7
SA2
3. 347
71.6
78.4
10
13
315
I. 218
38. 7
28.5
II
12
270
I, 136
33.2
26.6
10
13
82
52
10.1
1.2
10
859
15
859
100.0
9
352
41.0
9
65
7.6
A
62
7.2
9
7
0.8
8
R7
772
87
15
m
100.0
100.0
7
10
26
326
20.9
42.7
7
10
11
Negro
5.t
12 .6
7.0
7
8
5
57
5. 7
7.4
7
9
4
3
4.6
0.4
II
Croppers
2,866
2'2
6
73
100.0
100.0
22.6
22.1
R
15
Q
•27
18.0
21.0
I 7. 5
A
6
6
9
9
515
SA.3
63.3
636
05
541
22. 2
72
2,866
420
2,446
100.0
420
2.U6
1. 793
245
t,5.t8
62.6
White
q
41
32
2.5
9.8
1.3
11
It
10
712
28
363
51.0
6
4J3
60.8
11
712
100.0
14
1q1
25. 4
It
28
3.9
10
184
528
24
Ill
91
3,42
49.5
64.8
9
12
!A4
52R
100.0
100.0
15
55
126
29.9
23. 9
B
12
19
274
6
6
13
29
4A.4
51.9
10.3
1. 7
10
8
648
27
UI
6A. I
7
17A
•2. 9
9
120
18.5
10
64A
1no.o
I7
26
4.0
13
1?2
526
24
7ll
67
374
54. 9
71.1
6
7
45
233
3fi.9
44. 3
10
25
05
70. 5
18.1
10
10
172
526
100.0
100.0
13
IA
A
1"4.8
1.5
14
Negro
Other share tenants
C')
N....,.
ber
7
White
-!?"
Fanned
N""'ber
of Years
Fanned
68.0
Wage hands
N
Percent
3,456
Negro
~
N.,._
ber
22
'#hite
cg
Farwed
Ni.,,oer
of Years
Average
Average
Average
N.-
Owners
Renters
Other Share Tenants
Average
Ni.,,oer
Average
Number
5,<J!5
Total
0
Cropper~
White
Negro
Renters
•hite
Ne':irO
u
19
---
---
14
II
Q
88
I7
9
II
6
:x
-0
td
t""'
~
,<
9
--- -
0
a
~
.....
.....
--.;J
118 LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
A predominantly npward mohil ity trend is evidPnt for the
renters. More than two-thirds once had been wage hands, 43 percent had been share-croppers, and 19 percent had bf>en other
share tenants. Only 4 percent had dropped from the status of
owner.
On the other hand, while many of the wa;i-e hands had nevf'r
held any other status, 41 percent had bf'en share-croppers, 8
percent formerly had been other share tenants, and 7 percent
had been renters. Almost none 10.8 percent l had occupied the
status of owner.
It is evident that the plantation families had heen mobile
within agriculture as regards tenure status. At least half of
all thf' fami lv heads in the different groups above the wage- hand
stat us had once been wage hands.
More than 40 percent of the
farmers in ea.ch status had spent 9 years or longer, on the
Tobie 48--CHA,c[S IN STATUS Of 1,830 SOOTH CMIOLINA FAR!,1£RS, BY 1933 TENl.11£, ANO BY COLOR
1933
Number
fpnurt"
or
?Ind Color
F.:ulftP,rc;
0.ners
Whitf>
Nt>gro
Teni,nts
Percent of Ernployert Year~ Spent
e-
Tot -11
Owner
-- ~100.0
677
'>15
162
22,238
16.6<>'>
5. 54 3
100.0
1.1'>3
n,6fl6
17, 753
16. Y33
100.0
100.0
100.0
#hitp
5,1
'legro
622
source:
Ye:us
(rfl{l 1oyed
)(X).0
F:,.r-m
~:1n1ger
?I~
Tenant
Hi red
\Ian
~00-
Faming
68. 7
71. 3
67 .4
0.4
0.5
-
19.8
18.0
15.)
3.4
1.3
8.1
7.1
8.9
4.2
4. 3
8.0
0.5
1.0
0.1
A0.4
74. 7
84.8
5.5
3.0
7.4
13.3
6.2
!.';
9. 3
Uripwbli"'lf!d data,,..,,.. t.ludr conducted in •qhl reprpsenlative ,a,..inq coufll••S b7 t~e South
Carolina i•p•ri-nt Station ifl coop•r•~ia., •ith the C.W.A., 1.•.•·• ao,(I •·"·"·
average as share-croppers. A small proportion of the farmers
in each group once had heen owners for an average of 10 years
or more.
In all groups, larger proportions of Negroes than of whites
h:,d been wage h,1.nds ;i,nd share-croppers at sometime. Smaller
proportions of Negroes than of whites had moved down thf' agricultural ladder because their status tended to be lower in general !Table 471.
The study of 1,830 South Carolina farmers in 1933 gives additional data on changes in status, including information about
owners. Owner-operators interviewed had spent slightlv more
than two-thirds of their employed lives as owners (Table 481.
On the average, they had been tenants about one-fifth of their
employed years, and had worked in non-farming occnpat ions about
one-twelfth of their working lives. Very little of their time
had bef'n spent as wage h&nds or farm managers.
South Carolina tenant farmers had spent a much greater part
of their employed years in their 1933 status than had owners,
having spent about four-fifths of the years as tenants and 4.3
percent of their employed years in the status of owner, indicating slight movement down the ladder. Negro tenants had hP.en
Dig tized by
Google
HOB IL I TY
119
somewhat more suble occupationally than whites, spending 85
percent of their employed years as tenants, compat:ed with 75
percent for whites.
The tendency to move up the agricul tura.l ladder is undoubtedly accelerated in periods of prosperity. Conversely, in years
of unprofitable operations there is a tendency toward shifting
downw:1.rd. During the depression years 1929-1932 m1.ny farm owners lost their places, numerous renters and share tenants lost
their work stock and equipment, and thousands of croppers became
casual farm laborers. With higher cotton prices improvement
of status became possible for many families.
Such change in status is indicated by a study of l,703rural
families in North Carolina, 8 made by Hamilton in 1934-1935 after
incomes had been improved by the A.A.A. He found that out of
185 farm laborers in 1934, 43 had shifted up the ladder in 1935
into the cropper, renter, and owner groups. Of 400 croppers,
22 shifted up the ladder as contrasted with 19 who became farm
laborers. Of 356 renters, 8 moved up the ladder and 19 dro?ped
to the statt1s of cropper or laborer. Of 483 owners in 1934,
9 shifted down the ladder in 1935.
In comparison, only 21 of the 202 farm laborers in 1931
shifted up the ladder in 1932, only 16 of the 380 croppers, and
4 of the 321 renters. Of the 472 owners in 1931, 12 became
renters or croppers in 1932. 9
Tenure and Occupational Mobility
Analysis of the occupational stability !Appendix T11ble 531
of South Carolina farmers in 1933 shows that 27 percent of the
white owners had always been owners, never having experienced
a change in tenure status. This was also true of 14 percent
of the Negro owners, who began as owners and remained in that
status. Similarly, 45 percent of the white tenant farmers and
52 percent of the Negro tenants had always been tenants throughout their employed lives. Approximately 35percent of the white
8 Ha1111lton, Horace C., fh.11 Relation of the Agricultural Adjust•ent Progn,•
to Rural Ke lief Keeds in Jorth C.-rolinu, North Carolina £xDer1111ent Station,
November 1935 (mimeographed).
The survey Included all households In selected townshlDS or sections or
townships ln Johnston, Robeson, Richmond, Rutherrord, and Cas,rell Counties.
The optla!Stlc note sounded In thl8 report perhaps should be qualltted.
DlsDlace11ent or croppers had not been as extenslYe In these sample counties
as In other cotton and tobacco counties In eastern North Carolina. Data
rro■ the 1930 and 1936 Censuses ot Agrlcul ture reYeal that, when combined,
these tin sqple counties bad a 1930-1935 decrease ot on11 2.ll percent In
the nu■ ber ot croppers, while all cotton and tobacco counties In the State
bad a decrease or 7.7 percent (Appendix Table eo). On the other band, tbe
tlYe suple counties had an increase between 1930 and 1935 ot ll.6 percent
In the nu■ l>tr ot •other tenants• (share tenants and renters) llblle all cotton and tobacco counties in the State had an Increase or on11 4.8 percent.
11
1"••• p. 2.
Digitized by
Google
120
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
owners started out as tenants and moved directly from that status
to ownership, remaining owners throughout the su~sequent years
of their employment until the date of the study 119331. Approximately 11 percent of the white owners began as non-famers and
transferred directly to farm ownership, remaining subsequently
in that category.
The evidence presented in Appendix Table 53 shows that white
fat"lllers had traveled three main roads to ownership: Ill direct
to ownership when they began their occupational career; 121from
tenancy to ownership; and 13 l from non-fanning to ownership.
The Negroes had traveler! a somewhat different road. A slightly
Percent
Percent
40
20
60
Owner - No Change
Tenonl - No Change
Tenant to Owner
Tenon! lo Non-form
to Tenon!
Form Wage Hand lo
Tenant to Owner
Form Woge Hand
lo Tenon!
Nan - form lo Owner
Non -f orm lo Tenon!
Other Comb1na1,ons
Other Comb1notions
c::J While
40
60
~ Negro
FIG. 26- OCCUPATIONAL HISTORY OF 1,830 SOUTH CAROLINA
FARMERS, BY 1933 TENURE AND BY COLOR
Source: Study conducted by South Corolino Experiment
Station in cooperat ion wi th lhe C.W. A ., E. R. A ., and W. P.A .
AF -1459, WP.A .
higher proportion, 40percent, began as tenants and went directly to ownership; 14 percent began as owners and remained owners;
and 12 percent began as hired men, then became tenants, an(!
finally owners. The patterns of tenure-occupation combinations
&re presented with greater clarity in Figure 26.
The net long-time movements were upward until 1910-as indicated by the increase in owners and tenants at the expense of
laborers. However, since 1910 the number and proportion of
owners have decreased and the number and proportion of tenants
increasect. 1
Croppers were enumerated separately for the first
°
10 see chapter I, Table 3.
Digitized by
Google
.HOB IL I TY
121
time in 1925, Since that date they have increased in number
and proportion of the total, indicating a net downward movement
into this class.
RURAL-URBAN MOBILITY
Movements from agriculture to non-agricultural industries
and vice versa are usually, but not always, linked with residential mobility. A far111er leaves his farm t:o take a job in a
factory town, or an unemployed urban worker goes back to the
fann. As in the case of movement from fann to farm, a certain
amount of inter-occupational nobility is necessary for making
Table 49-MO\IES TO T<JII< BY PlANTATION FAMILIES, BY 1934 TENUlE STATUS, ANO BY COLCJI
(Cotton Pll!ntat ion Enumeration)
!9J4
Tenure Status
and Color
Total
White
li"'Jro
Renters
White
H,,gro
Ott,,e,r ,hart" t~nts
Wt1ite
'"'9,0
Croppeors
.. hi te
N<,gro
•age Nlnds
l#t- ite
Negro
Tl)teil
Fami 1 ies
Reporting•
Percent Mftking Sp~cified Nl.lflber of Moves to Town
0
I
2
J
4,838
728
4,110
100.J
100.0
100.0
87.5
SJ.I
88.J
10.1
IJ.4
9.5
1.4
1.9
1.J
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.4
~28
107
521
100.0
100.0
100.0
86.1
78.5
87. 7
12 .1
19. 7
10.6
1.0
0.9
1.0
O.J
0.4
0.5
0.9
O.J
672
167
505
100.0
100.0
100.0
92 .1
85.6
94.J
6.4
10.8
4.9
0. 7
1.8
0.4
O.J
0.6
0.2
0.5
1.2
0.2
2,715
2.J4J
100.0
100.0
100.0
86.5
81. 7
87.J
11.1
14 .2
10.6
1.4
2.2
1.2
o. 7
0.8
0.6
O.J
I.I
O.J
823
82
741
100.C
100.0
100.0
88.1
6.4
7.J
8.5
2 .6
2.4
2.6
0.5
0,4
372
Total
90.J
87.9
0.5
4 and ().,f"r
-
0.5
vocational adjustments. Broad general movements back to the
farm or away from the farm, however, signalize vital changes
in the economic situation, and especially in the condition of
industrial activity. When industry booms, workers leave the
farm for the cities; when industry slumps, workers return to
the farm.
The plantation families included in this study had remained
closely tied to the soil during their years of e111ployment, as
measured by the proportion that had moved to town and back.
Only a small proportion had moved and these had moved only a
few times !Table 491. For all cases for which data were available 14,8381, only l in 8 had made l or more moves to tow11
and only 1 in 40 had noved IOOre than once. The proportion of
Negroes that had never moved to town was 88. 3 percent as compared with 83.1 percent for the whites.
Comparing the different tenure groups, it was found that
other share tenants made fewer moves to town than any other
Dig 112ed y
Goos IC
122
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON
PLANTATION
group, while renters and croppers made the most. Among whites
the most moves to town had been made by renters, followed by
share-croppers, other share tenants, and wage hands, the last
group having made the fewest moves of all. Among Negroes the
most moves to town were made by share-croppers, followed by
renters, wage hands, and other share tenants.
The fact that only a few of the plantation families in all
classes had moved to town more than once makes it evident that
those resident on the plantations studied had very little interoccupational mobility but bad remained to a great extent in
agriculture.
The South Carolina study further showed that white tenants
had spent only 13.3 percent of their employed lives in non-farming and Negro tenants had spent only 6.2 percent of their employed lives in non-farming !Table 481. Comparable proportions
for owners were8.9percent and4.2percent, respectively. These
differences by color are probably due in large part to the lack
of opportunities outside of agriculture for Negroes.
These plan tat ion families, it would seem, grow up and perpetuate the culture of the fanning occupation. They remain to a
great extent in constant touch with farming, and there is little
inter-occupational 111obili ty. Thus, the atti tndes or the people
are highly conditioned by agricultural habits, and they tend
to reflect, accordingly, the behavior patterns characteristic
of the local agricultural groups. With low inter-occupational
mobility, or with few of the families moving back and forth to
town, there is little opportunity for the spread of ideas from
the outside world into the plantation system.
Plantation families in this study, and farm families for whom
data were obtained in other studies, were farming at the time
they were daily enumerated. Hence, so far as inter-occupational
mobility is concerned, they include only those who had moved
from farming to non-farming and back again or those who started
out in non-farming occupations and shifted to farming. These
form only a very small proportion of the total number who moved
to town.
It was noted in chapter I that nearly 4 million persons born
in the rural Southeast were living in other sections in 1930.
It is impossible to tell how many of these moved directly from
farming to urban industries and how many were below working age
when they moved. However, the age distribution of Negroes in
Michigan in 1930 !Appendix Table 541, most of whom were recent
migrants from southern States, indicates by the concentration
in the young adult age groups that most of these left the South
just before or soon after they reached the age for entering
agriculture on their own account.
Hamilton's study of migration by age groups from southern
rural town populations indicates a similar concentration of
oig1 -z-d by
Google
MOBILITY
123
white ■iaraats b the earl, adult age groups. 11 After these
aigraats becoae accustoaedtocitJlifefew ever return to farms.
MOBILITY BY COLOR
Throughout this chapter various differences have been noted
reiarding the aobilitJ of Negroes and whites. Negroes on plantations appear to be less lllObile in most respects than whites.
In view of the fact that Negro families outnumbered the white
faailies on the plantations covered by this survey at the rate
of ■ore than five to one, the special character of Negro 111obilit1 should be noted.
Por instance, Negro faailies had lived 8.6 years on the fann
where tbeJ resided in 1934, while the wbi tes had lived there
an average of onl1 5,9 years !Table 411, For the large group
of share-croppers the figures were 7.3 years for Negroes, as
coapared with 4.7 rears for whites. Similar comparisons could
be llade for all tenures.
Negro heads had lived on each farm, since the worker was 16
rears of age, an average of 6,1 years, while the comparable
figure for whites was only 4 .8 years per fa.rm (Table 411. Negro
share-croppers had lived 5.6 years on eachfarmand white sharecroppers 4.4 years.
Negro families had also lived on fewer farms than bad whites,
the white plantation families having lived on an average of 4.3
fan11s as compared with 3.7 farms for the Negro families !Table
411. White croppers had lived on an average of 4 .4 farms as
compared with 4.0 for Negro croppers.
These differences are even greater than the data. cited indicate because Negro farmers are older and have spent more years
in faming than have comparable white groups.
The fa.ct that the Negroes were less mobile than the whites
should not necessarily be interpreted to mean that they were
110re successful faraers as a result of their relative stability,
although it seeas true that most landlords prefer good Negro
tenants to white tenants. This stability or relative immobility
may be of that type referred to above which arises out of the
existence of a system which limits personal and individual initiative in mating choices of residence. The relative stability
of the Negro faailies 111ay indicate that Negroes are less free
to circulate t-erritorially than whites and that their stability
is the result of conditions to s011e extent forced upon them by
circumstance. The Negro is certainly in a less favorable bargaining position than the white.
11 111pab11ued C,V,A, etad7 of ■ 11rant• tro■
••••• eoutllera Stat•••
oig1 -z-d by
Google
124 LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
This indicates that mobility,""hich gives fluidity to a population, may work one way for one social group, and another
way for another group. The conditions incitient to mobility,
or stability, are important and ,iauire the efficiency or inefficiency of 111obility as a part of the social mechanism.
Comparisons similar to those made above may also be made on
the basis of data from the South Carolina study. White farmers
undoubtedly have access to more industries than Negro farmers
in Sou th Carolina and therefore have a greater opportunity for
inter-occupational mobility. This is linked with the relative
difference3 regarding mobility from farm to farn mentioned a.hove.
The fact that access to industry is more open to white f~I'llers
■akes the number of territorial moves greater for white faraers,
since a change from faming to non-agricultural industry, or
utce uersa, is generally accompanied by a change in residence.
Of the Negro plantation families in this study, 88.3 percent
had never moved to town I presumably to take a non-agricultural
occupation!, as co~ared with 83.1 for the whites ITable 491.
The South Carolina study showed ITable 481 that white tenant
farmers had spent 13.3 percent of their employed lives in nonfarming as compared with only 6. 2 percent for the Negroes.
Negroes were also less mobile within agriculture. Heads of
families had remained in their 1934 tenure status for an average of 13.0 years, a.c; compared with 10.l years for the whites
(Table 461 and the same relationship holds for each status.
The ~egro croppers in this plantation study had remained in
their 1934 tenure status an average of almost 14 years. as compared with an average of 10 years for the white croppers. Negroes who were other share tenants had worked in this tenure
continuously for an average of 15 years, compared with 12 years
for white tenants. The Negro renters had fanned an average of
15 years in the renter status, and the white renters an average
of 11 years. The Negro wage hands had worked an average of 8
years, and the white wage hands an average of 6 years in that
status.
The study of South Carolina farmers revealed that Negro tenant farmers had moved on the average 4.6 times during their em..
ployed life and the whit~ tenant farmers 5.6 times (Table 421.
White owners and Negro owners, however, had done about the same
aaount of moving during their employed lives.
Digitized by
Google
EDUC ATI ON
129
States except Louisiana showed in 1931-1932 a l a r ger rati o of
total population enrolled in public schools t han th e average
for the United States as a whole. Mississippi led wit h 2B.6
percent, as c0111pared with 21.1 percent for the Un ited Stat es. •
FIG.29-PERCENT OF POPULATION
UNDER 20 YEARS Of AG£., 1930
Percent
□ Under 35
EZ:]35-40
11!!!:!!11 40 - 4 5
l!i!il!l 4 5 and
CNer
S0U'ar. SOJTHERN REGIONAL STUDY,
l.w-sity of North Carolina
AF - 2033, W P A
,0
ao
>O
,ountl.AST
80UTHWHT
_,.....,.
PERCENT OF POPULATION UNDER 20 YEARS OF AGE , 19 30
Soo,rce , SOUTHERN ' REGIONAL STUDY,
University of North Corolina
AF-2035, W.P. A.
This situation in the Southeast is merely a reflection of
tbe relatiYely large percentage of persons of school age in th is
region !Figure 291. The iaplication for education ls that these
States, with low per capita taxable wealth, hue disproportionately large numbers of children to be educated .
••, _ , . , ,..,,., of U.C11Uoa, 11110-1816, •eiatlallH or 8'ah llcllOOl --, .... 11181-INI•, u. I. DepartMDt or th• Interior, pp. te-,IO.
Dr IILed by
Goog IC
130
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON TBB COTTON PLANTATION
A more significant index is the average number of days attended by each pupil enrolled. In this respect the southeastern States have the lowest rating of any in the country. Of
the silf States showing an average of less than 125 days attendance at school per enrolled pupil, all except one (Kentucky)
were within the southeastern cotton region. Mississippi stood
at the bottom of the list with an average of 98.1 days, as contrasted with Illinois which rank~d first with 163.2 days. 7
For rural pupils alone the ayerage number of days of school
attendance in 1931-1932 was even less, ranging from QO in Georgia to 122.5 in North Carolina,• compared with 132.4 for the
Table 50-EIX.CATION r,; CHIL:JR[N (Jr RUll4L R£LIEF AND NON-RELIEF HOUSEHOLDS
IN TH[ OLD SOOTH COTTON ARU, BY ClJLCl!l, OCTOB[R 1933
Percent of Ch, ldren
5--75 Ye,u::. of Age
Still in School
Area
l
Per~;~t -of Ch, ldren
12-tq Ye,.n. of A.~e
Tp;rcent
WhoCO'l',olett.>d
WhoCcrnpleted
Gr,de 'ichool
_ _ _ __, Rel ud
Old South Cotton Are..i (5 count,e!:tl
V,h1 le
""9ro
Source.
lltCllr••c•,
r. c.,
~'_l-rel
I
•_I:!
:;;- C~, I ~
15-73 Y~dr~ of a~e
H,;h xhool
_Relief
Non-re~•-e~
Rel~'=''-
"'°~relief
H
61
II
27
11
l~
~
A
17
'4
7
14
~q_.___~_1_,._ ~ _ _ 9
I
3
6R
6R
51
Sil
~
59
Coe.,.rohw J1llll7 o/ ,...,.4,1 ,., .. , • • lft-rah1/ '°""'•Aol-Jr, w.l'.A, l•H•rcfl
Ni.,NJgr.,p., II, It)), pp.
u-•J
rural United States as a whole, and 166.8 days for Illinois.
Of six States with a rural attendance of less than 110 days,
all except Kentucky were within the southeastern cotton region.
That the Negro schools compare unfavorably with the white
is common knowledge. The average number of days at tended by
each Negro child enrolled in both urban and rural schools in
1931-1932 was less than that attended by white children in each
of the seven southeastern cotton States. The difference ranged
from 23 days in Alabama and North Carolina to 51 days in South
Carolina. 11
The cotton States also led in proportion of persons who had
never attended school. A recent survey of rural relief and nonrelief households covering 47 counties representing 13 major
agricultural areas of the United States revealed that in the
5 counties in Alabama, Arkansas, and North Carolina representing
the Old Sou th Cot ton area, 16 percent of all heads of non-relief
households lin 19331 had never attended school. Among the Negroes this proportion reached 26 percent as compared with only
7 percent for the whites !Table 501. Among the relief households
7 8'enn,e1 I St1,r11ey of lducG Hon, 1930-l 932, op. cU., p.
•u•• , p.
oo.
10•.
8 Idn, P, 96,
Dly1
zedbyGoogle
131
EDUCATION
more than a third of the Negro heads and a fifth of the white
heads had neTer attended schooI. 10
The educationaldifferences between the open country population of the Southeast and of the United States indicate that
the average grade attainment of the Southeast is about a grade
and a half behind the United States total, and that the average
grade attainment of the Negroes alone is three and a half years
behind. Although these comparisons !Table 511 are made on the
basis of the relief population, much in the same sectional differential holds in the non-relief group . 11 The grade attainments of the ·generation in school or just out of school are much
greater t ban those of t be older generation, the 18 to 20 year
group in the Eastern Cotton Area being a full grade ahead of
T4o l e 51-14': DI AN GRADE IN SCHOOi. COll'l.[ TED BY HODS O D IO,IB[RS 10-6' YEl<RS Of /IC,£ <J"
COUN TRY RC Li ff HOUS[HOLIJS IN NI NE ll(Plll:S[ NUTIV[ AGR ICIILlUqAI. H [ AS
ANO IN TH£ [ ASTERN CQTT()fj ~ [ A, RY KI. GROUPS , OCTJBER 1935
---Age
Al I
Nine Areas
Corroined
......
to to 13 ye,us
U to 15 y~ars
16 to t 7 year~
\8 to 10 yea rs
21
25
35
45
to 24 ,ears
t o JA ye,trs
lo U yea rs
to 6' years
Ql'[N
--- --- -- - -- ----
[dStern Co tt on 6.rea
To ta1
Wh i l e
~cgro
6.2
4.8
5. 4
2. 7
4.6
7.2
8.0
8. D
3.3
5.0
5. 7
6.0
J. 7
2.4
J. I
?.9
7. 9
7. 0
6. 2
6. 0
5. 6
5.2
4. 2
5.2
5.5
6 .6
6. 8
J.9
7. I
J.I
6. 2
5.9
2. 9
2. 7
1.8
4. 7
the 35 to 44 year group and two full grades beyond the 45 to
64 year group.
The relief and non-relief study referred to above yields inforntation as to continuance in school (Table 501. Possibly most
striking is the fact that only one-fourth (26 percent> of rural
non-relief children 12 to 19 years of age had coMpleted grade
school. Among the Negroes this proportion dropped to less than
1 out of 10, and among the Negro relief cases to 1 out of 16.
Comparatively few Negroes had completed high school.
Other studies show that the proportion of students in the
rural Southeast who attend high school is relatively small. 0!
the total popnlationl4 to 17 years of age in the United States,
31 percent were enrolled in high schools in rural communities
in 1930, whereas of the southeastern cotton States, North Carolina alone rose higher than the national average with 33 percent. All other States of the Southeast !ell below 25 percent,
10
11
11ccol'll1Clt, ,.
11ccol'lllc1t, , •
c•• o;. cu.,
c. , '4••.
tables 26 and 20.
Digitized by
Google
132
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
Alabama ranking at the bottom with less than 14 percent. 12 Comparison between urban and rural areas shows relatively more than
twice as many students in high schools in urban areas, but the
discrepancy tends to be much greater in the Southeast than elsewhere. For example, in Arkansas the proportion of children 14
to 17 years of age in rural communities enrolled in high schools
in 1930 was less than 17 percent as compr.red with nearly 80
percent or almost five times as many in the urban schools of
the State. 13 The development of consolidated schools in the
Southeast is beginning to equalize urban-rural opportunities
for whites, but few such schools are available for Negroes.
LENGTH OF TERII
Beyond the question of bare availability of schools, and directly related to attendance, is the question of the amount of
education made available. The accompanying map and chart (Figure 301 show the deficiency of the cotton States in this respect. Unless schools are actually in session their presence
or absence in the community does not greatly matter. Quoting
Dr. W. h. Gaumnitz, Senior Specialist in Rural School Problems
of the United States Office of F.ducation: "School opportunities
are obviously very different in a community where the school
is open for 9 months from what they are where the school is
open only 5 months. It is practically impossible to accomplish satisfactory results ••• in schools openlessthan half the
year." 14 Yet all the southeastern cotton States were far below the average in length of rural school term in the United
States 1159. 9 days I and three of them averaged less than 130
days in 193l-i932. 16 The discrepancy in length of urban and
rural school terms is considerably greater in the Cotton South
than elsewhere, the range being from a 59-day shorter rural
term in Georgia to essentially equal terms in New Hampshire and
New Jersey and a 6-day longer rural t nan urban term in Connect icut.
The situation with regard to Negroes was, of course, worse
than that for whites. In the seven southeastern cotton States
in 1931-1932 the average length of school term for Negroes was
shorter than the term for whites, the difference ranging from
25 days in Georgia to 57 days in Louisiana. 18
12,conosic lnrichsent of the Ssaii Secondary-School Cvrricviu, Department
or Rural f.ducat1on, National Eaucation .Association, February 19:S., p. 18.
13Id•••
141conosk and Socia i ProbletJS aria Condition., of the 8outhen1 .ff)t,a lacUan8,
U. s. Departaent ot Agr1cul ture, Miscellaneous Publlcatlon No. 8)6, January
1936, p. 99.
16 Biennial 8vrvey of ldvcation, lQ30-1932, of). cit., p. 10•.
u •• ,
18
p. 116.
C1g1tzed by
Google
EDUCATION
133
FIG. 30- AVERAGE LENGTH OF SCHOOL TERM IN DAYS.
1927-1928
Day s
[=:J Less
than l60
0160-170
&170 - 180
iiiiiil 180 Clf1d more
Source: SOUTHERN REGIONAL STUDY,
Urnwrsily of North Corohno
..,_
-·-··....
"'·------~
......
_.,_
0
Ill
40
6C>
m
0012'Di«J..OICJOO
!IClUTH[&S'
...MC.-.
..... c.-.
......
... « ..
...........
.,,_,_
L11111,,,.,..
AF - 'KJ37. W PA
_._
----~
--__
..._,_
--- ----~
50U,T111£AST
IIIOIITHf&ST
...---.
'"'"
........
.·._
·-,...,_
~
-., .,.~
VIOCt[
,
s•atE'!o
~·~
,
---
l'l()q;,..-,nsT
Ila,- ... ~
. ~.
-..... .
-"""··,
'--
""'
~~
......
C--•~
_..,,
-·~-
. ., ... cr><t
... '"""''°
•OOLF '-,r.a.r::5
"''°
---.~---~
JltQR"l,..Wf5l
llarl'fliJa.....
5o.tl'I C'Gllol'ol
-~~
.......
u-
fAA •£ST
FAA .-CST
"-
0-
AVERAGE LENGTH OF SCHOOL TERM
IN DAYS, 1927-1928
~~
.,.,_
M OIHH[A';it
c- ...,
~
,_
SOUTMWt:ST
.........
O..••··
-~~--
,_.,
,__
500T><•£ST
,,..'"""'.
"""'·"'"•
Q10l0415M>T~'JO~l2Cll6-1~.e,
Wg,in,.,qf!;at
(;Qh,-,:i
1920
lncrwase from
1920 to 1930
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS ATTENDED
BY EACH PUPIL ENROLLED
IN 1920 and 1930
Source SOUTHERN REGIONAL STUDY,
Un,vers,1y of Nor1h Carolina
AF-2039, WPA
DigtizedbyGoogle
134 LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
Recent computations made by the United States Office of F.dncation17 show that the average length of school term in 19291930 for rural one-teacher schools in the southern States was
166 days for white schools and 123 days for Negro schools. The
variation among th<> States is considerable. Whereas in North
Carolina and G<>org ia the Negro tf"rms were only 5 and 6 days
shorter, respectively, in South Carolina and Louisiana they were
66 and 77 days shorter. Moreover, South Carolina and Louisiana
had the shortest terms for Negroes, with only 85 and 93 days
respectively.
The average lengths of term of the various classes of white
and Negro schools show that the greatest discrepancy comes in
these one-teacher schools and also that they have the shortest
terms.
It is of obvious significance that the one-teacher
schools are the ones which most directly concern the cotton fami lies. The average lengths of term for the various classes of
rurals<:hools hy race in 1929-1930 were as follows: one-teacher
schools, white, 166 days, Negro, 123 days; two-teacher schools,
white,16ldays,Nt"gro, 128days; schools of three or more teachers in open country, white, 165 days, Negro, 144 days; consolidated schools, white, 169 days, Negro, 156 days; schools of
three or more teachers in villages and towns, white, 175 days,
Negro, 158 days. 18 The depression increased the rural handicap,
as many schools have been closed each year after 3 or 4 months
operation, owing to lack of funds.
TEACHERS' TRAINING AND SALARIES
It is generally agreed that the factor of greatest i!'1portance in the school education of a child is his teacher. The
salaries paid probably offer the best index as to the quality,
training, and fitness of the persons employed for the task
!Figure 311. Judged on this basis the rural United States fares
badly compared with urban areas, as does the rural South compared with the rural United States as a whole. The average annual salary of rural teachers in the southeastern cotton States
in 1931-1932 ranged from $485 in Arkansas to $702 in North Carolina while for urban teachPrs the range was from $967 in Arkansas to $1,287 in Louisiana, these averages being raised by the
inclusion of supervisors and principals. 19
The status of the rural teacher is well described in the following quotation from the National Inventory of Human Welfare:
"During the school year 1933-34 one-half of all rural teachers
17 oaumnltz, Walter H., Status of reache.-s and P.-incipal~ laploycd '" Che
Nu.-al Schools of tr.e United States, Bulletin Ko. 3, 1g32, p.
ee.
18 Idea.
19 Biennial Survey of lducation, 1930-1932, op. cie., p. 107.
Dig t1zed by
Google
135
EDUCA TION
in the United States received less than $750 a nnual s alary- less
than the 'blanket code' minimum of the N.R.A. for unskill ed labor! At least 40.000 of this low-salaried group received less
than $500 a year. Many Negro teachers had a n annual s ala r y of
as little as $100, and in agricultural sec t i ons expe ri e nced
1120
teachers were paid as low as $30 and $40 a month.
The fiv e
States with the lowest salaries paid to rural teac hers were in
the southeastern area. 21
FIG. 31-AVERAGE ANNUAL SALARIES
PAID PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHE RS, 1928
Dollars
D
Less lhan 1,000
D
1,000 - t,500
m 1.500 ,
2,000
, ~ 2.0 00- 2,337
l~ I ' (,
Source. SOUTHERN REGIONAL STUDY,
\ ,.)
University of Nor th Carolina
AF - 20 4 1, W PA
As noted above, the United States Office o f Educat io n recently published an extremely illuminating study 22 gi vi ng t he s al ary, length of term, education, and experience o f rural t eache r s
by race and class of school. Comment here is res t r i c te d to bu t
one i tern-salaries in one-teacher rural school s . Some ve r y interesting facts are revealed by a compariso n of t he med i a n sal aries in the States. For example, the white te ach e r i n t he oneteacher schools of Georgia received an average !med i a n I o f $403
in 1929-1930, whereas the teacher in this same type o f ru r al
school in California received an average o f $1, 360 , a n amou nt
more than three times as great. Of tne sou t li e a.s t e rn St ates , 5
20
A lational Inu•ntory of 8,-sn ll•lfan, No. 8, •Pr oblems WtJlch Coll!ront
the Public Schools.• Inroniation Service, Depar tment or Researcl, aud
Education, Federal Councu or tbe Churches or Chr ist ln .uierlca , F'e b ruar7 8, t93e, Vol. XV, No. 6, p. 3.
218 .
. ,
.
Svr11•1 of ldi.cahon,
1930-1932, op. ci.t.
0au11111tz, Walter H., op. ci.t.
UnlU(h
22
Dig t1zed oy
Google
136 LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
fell into the lowest 12 of the 48 States. 23 Apropos of the general range of these salaries Dr. Gaumnitz raised the following
queries which are particularly suggestive when applied to the
cotton States:
How good a teacher and what quality of education
can reasonably be expected for the salaries offered?
Can a State with so little in the way of financial
rewards hope to attract to its schools teachers who
can perform adequately tne very difficult,complex,
and responsible task of assuming almost sole guidance of the educational development of rural children? Can high-grade young men and women under the
salary conditions prevailing reasonably be expected
to devote themselves seriously to the arduous and
expensive task of obtaining a training commensurate
with the task of teaching, and to a large degree,
of supervising and administrating the work of these
schools? Can their interest in rural teaching as
a field of service be expected to be anything but
transitory if the income offered is so unsatisfactory?24
The above comments refer only to white schools. The annual
median salaries in the Negro one-teacher rural schools were
also computed for the southern States. The States of Alabama,
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and &>u th Carolina all paid
median salaries of less than $300. By way of comparing white
and Negro education Dr. Gaumni tz made the following pertinent
co11111ents on the basis of these data:
If the salary of the median white teacher employed in all the rural schools of the 17 [southern]
States is computed it is found to be $788; for all
the colored teachers employed in the rural schools
of the same States, it is found to be $388, a differential of $400. By way of further comparison,
the median salary of all classes of rural white
teachers for the United States was found to be $945.
These differences are significant and lead to some
disturbing questions: Is it any wonder that Negro
teachers as a group show particularly low training
standards? What can be expected in the way of highgrade teaching performance when such meager bid is
made for high-grade performers? Can we hope to
23 oau■n1t&, Walter R., o~. cit., pp. 30-31.
24 ues, p. 32.
Dig tized by
Google
137
EDUCATION
i111pr0Ye the public education provided for the Negro
unless we are willing to put more into the making
and retention of those charged with the important
task of giving instruction? Can we logically expect the Negro race to fit into the American scheme
of things socially, economically, and culturally
if we continue to provide its constituents with an
educational opportunity which at its mainspring,
the teacher, is so seriously handicapped?8 1
T,ble 52-EXPE~OITUl[S FOR TE~CHERS• SAIARIES I~ I\JBLIC SCHOOLS PER CHILD 6 - 14 Y[A'lS Of 4GE
Pe rcent of lncr~aise
~r C1pil'I
Stat~
Ye:!r
'M-lite
Me1Jro
'M'l i te
Negro
Okl,hc,no
1912-1913
IQZ0-1921
$IC . 21
Cl.94
S 9.96
24 .85
1q5
149
Te1Cas
l~IJ--1914
1927-1q23
10.08
32.~5
5. 74
14.J5
277
150
Kentucky
1911-1912
8.13
8.53
Tennessee-
1913-1914
8.27
4.83
-
-
~orth Caro 1 i na
!91!-lql2
1921-1922
5.27
26. 74
2.02
IQ.OJ
407
J97
~
!91!-1912
1921-1922
9.?4
28.65
2. 74
9. 07
197
231
l\rkar\s.ts
1912-1913
1921-192?
12.95
20.60
4.59
7.19
5Q
57
louis i:'ln,,1
1911-1912
!9ll-1923
13. T?36.2()
1.31
6.47
164
394
Florid.a
1910-1911
1921-1922
II.SO
37.88
2.64
6.27
229
139
Georgia
1911-1912
1921-1922
9.58
23.68
I. 76
5.5'
147
215
Vississippi
1912-1913
1921-1922
10 .60
28.41
2.26
4.42
168
96
lla-
1911-1912
1921-1922
9.Cl
22.43
!. 78
4.31
138
142
Sooth CJtrol in~
1911-1912
1921- 1922
10.00
J(l.28
1.44
3.63
203
152
Vi rgini
-
The limitations imposed upon the development of an adequate
school system by low salaries for teachers can hardly be exaggerated. Not only do such salaries fail to attract adequate
talent into T"llral teaching but they serve to drive many of the
110st efficient of the present teachers either into other lines
of work, into urban schools, or into other States which pay
better salaries. Thus, many of the better teachers are lost to
the rnral South because they are unable to maintain their selfrespect and professional standing on the inadequate salaries
offered then.
Digitized by
Google
138
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
The deficiency in teachers, however, is not entirely a matter of finance or unavailability of suitably trained persons.
A recent Arkansas study comparestheeducational qualifications
of 5,536 unemployed teachers who applied for relief teaching
assign111ents between October and December of 1933 with the qualifications of 9,386 elementary teachers regularly employed in
the State during 1932-1933. 20 The comparison indicates that
those who were not employed and who made application for assignment on relief teaching had materially higher educational qualifications than those who were employed during the school year.
Hore than 16 percent of the unemployed were college graduates
as compared with less than 6 percent of the employed; more than
28 percent of the unemployed had had from 2 to 4 years of college training in comparison with 22 percent of the employed.
Table 5}-P£R CAPITA EXP£NDITIJI£ FOIi THCMFRS' SALARIES IN COUNTIES
BY f'£~EJH CF N[GIOES IN THE TOTAL POPULATION
Perct-nhge of N~groes in
Tohl Population
Per C!llpi h FxpP.ndi ture for Teachers• Salaries
lhi tP.
Negro
S 7.96
s1.n
Counties 10 to 25 percent Jile,gro
9.55
Counties 25 lo 50 percent Nil!'gr-o
Counties 50 to 75 percent Negrn
Count 1es 75 percent and over
II.II
5.55
3.19
I. 77
I. 78
Counties under 10 percent Nf!'9rO
12.53
22.n
Obviously, considerations otherthanedncational qualifications
often determine the choice of teachers. The school hoards that
se lee t the teachers, and the 111embers of the community that
choose the school boards, are themselves victim.~ of the educational inadequacies ol the past.
Somet.hing of the educational situation existing when those
who are now adults were growing up is shown in Table 52. These
figures, while encouraging because they show snhstantial increase in per capita expenditure for teachers' salaries, are
also discouraging when viewed as to actual amounts spent, particularly for Negro children. It is not surprising that Louisiana, for example, had a rural Negro illiteracy rate of 35 percent for the population 21 years of age and over in 1930 when
back in 1911-1912, the date at which the average tenant farmer
of today was of school age, the expenditure for teacher's salary per Negro child 6 to 14 years of age was hut $1.31,
The following data (Table 531, selected from this same period,showing the per capita expenditure for teachers' salaries
in counties grouped according to percentage of Negroes in the
total population, show that the heavier the Negro population
26stat1'.! of Coaao11 Sclloob and of llnentary teachers i11 Arm!UGS, 18111,
Ellergency Reller ~•lnlstratton or Arkansas (typed), p.
sa.
Dig t1zed by
Google
Chapter X
RELIEF AND REHABILITATION
The very nature of the share-cropping system presents a situtation in the rural South unlike that faced elsewhere in the
administration of relief. A review of the preceding chapters
reveals a number of reasons for the relatively high rural relief r~tein the southeastern States in the early months of the
relief program, and the relatively low rate in the later months
of the program. The prevailing one-crop system of farming with
consequent soil depletion, the cropper system with the concomitant low standard of living and high illiteracy rate, the adTent of the weevil, and the expansion of southwestern cotton
product ion set the stage for the prolonged agricultural depression with frequent periods of low cotton prices. Disorganization of agriculture resulted in curtailment of operations by
some planters and absolute cessation of planting by others between 1930 and 1932. Furthermore, tobacco acreage was decreased
by about one-third during this period. The result was a displacement of large numbers of cropper families during these
years. 1 Rural youth, no longer able to get employment in urban
centers and unable to gain entrance to the agricultural economy of the South, augmented unemployment rolls. Land foreclosures increased enonnously (chapter II I. Furthermore, an important non-agricultural cause of the high relief rates in some
farming areas of the Southellst was the decadence of lumbering
and naval stores industries which had formerly provided employment for farmers in off-seasons.
EXTENT AND TREND OF RELIEF
These conditions multiplied distress in the seven southeastthat half a million cases were
on the relief rolls early in the prognm !October 19331 (Appendix Table 561. This constituted slightly more than one-eighth
of the number of families in the area as reported in the 1930
Census. Of the total half million cases in the cotton States
ern cotton States to the point
111actwe11, Oordon w., •The Displaced Tenant rarn Family 1n North Carolina•,
3oci4l forces, October 11134, Vol. 13, No. 1. Sa■ple counties were Oreene,
•ash, and Wilson. Also, Beet, 0 • o. and Forster, K. c., Sis Rural Probl••
Areas, Re H.e/-Rcsovrccs-RclaabHUaUOft, F. E. R.A. Research Monograph I,
11136, pp. 63-64.
145
01q 112ed by
Goos IC
146
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
in October 1933, almost 300,000 were in cotton counties. 8 Over
200,000 of these were rural cases, and many of the urban clients
h/\d followed occupations whose prosperity wu dependent upon
cotton. The relative incidenc~ of relief in cotton and noncotton counties, in urban and rural areas, and in white and Negro families is shown in Figure 33.
The number of relief cases continued to increase tbrourh the
winter of 1933-1934 until, in January 1934, they aaouted to
more than one-sixth of the 1930 families, in spite of the transfer of thous'inds of families from relief to the Civil Worts Ad111inistration (Appendix Table 57 and Figure 34t. At this tiae
the relief rate in the Cotton Plantation Belt was hirher than
iG any other lllajor agricultural area of the United States except the Spring Wheat Area. 8
'
In the spring of 1934 the rural rehabilitation prorraa was
inaugurated with the objective of removing fal"lllers fro11 the dole
and aiding them to attain self-support. Subsequent appraisal
of the relief situation must, therefore, be based on a c0111bination of relief and rehabilitation trends.•
From a peiik of 293,000 cases in November lg33, the naaber
of rural relief cases in cotton counties had dropped to 251,000
in Hay 1934, 13,000 cases having been transferred to rural rehabilitation. For a year the number of relief and rehabilitation cases combined remained about the same, decliainr only 5
percent by Hay 1935. During this 12 11onths, howeYer, 42,000
cases were transferred to rehabilitation (Appendix Table 58 aad
Figure 351. Between Hay 1935 and November 1935 the combined
total decreased by 117,000, due partly to the Works Prograa.
While the decrease in relief in cotton counties between MaJ
1934 and May 1935 was largely balanced by the increase la futilies on rural rehabilitation rolls, the shift does not hold
true for each individual State. In the cotton countiea of Arkansas and Georgia, relief and rehabilitation cases botll lacreased. In Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina the relief
load decreased far more than the rehabilitation load increased.
In North Carolina slightly more cases -were taken on rehabilitation
z
.
In or<ler. to rocua th• dl8CUH1OD ■or• ClOHlJ' OD tlH PlUt&UH, ca, ..
counttu wt th
parcent or ■or• or their 1ro•• rar■ tno_. r.,.. ~&lea
nr• tabulate<! eeparatelJ' rro• ti!.• tobacco, 1ea•ra1 rar■ 1.. , ae1r-•rr1e1a1,
and other crop apeclaltJ' countl•••
3 s.e Kangus, A. R., Clu.ntint J~pcch of lurcii l•H•f, an<! AacJl, Barta, Iara
fci■ 'Hu on ReH.11/ cilld ldab\UiciUon, rorthco■ tn1 ■onosrapbeor tlle D1Y1aton or soc1a1 Research, W.P.A.
•P'a■ 111es un<ler the rural rehabU 1 tat1on pro1ra• "ere for tba ■oat part
ror■ er rel1 er cu ents atUl <lepen<lent upon 1o•ern ■ ent ualatanca.
Tllt7
are, thererore, 1nclu<le<I "1th relief ru111ee 1n a co■ b1ned lnteaalt7 rate.
While th1a proYt<les an accurate picture or th• trend, tt cau••• ao■• clapUcat1on 1D the total nu■ ber or cases aa ao■ e rehab1lttat1on cuenta recel•Hd
supplementary at<! rro■ "ork reuer an<! conaequontlJ' are coanted la bo~
pro1rus.
"°
RELIBF AND REHABILITATION
0
5
Percent
15
147
25
20
30
TOTAL RURAL Cotton Counties
Non-Colton Counties
WHITE URBAN Cotton Counties _
Non-COffon Counties
NEGRO RURAL Coffon Counties
Non-Coflon C51unties
NEGRO URBAN Cotton Counties
Non-Colton Counties
FIG. 33-RELIEF RATES IN THE SEVEN SOUTHEASTERN COTTON
STATES BY RESIDENCE, COLOR, AND LOCATION
IN COTTON OR NON-COTTON COUNTIES,
October 1933
Source· Unemployment Relief Census,
October 1933, Report Number Two, Tobie 9, pp 106-211
!
AF-1451, W P A
10
C:
0
c
~
:
51--+---+-+-----+--l----+---+-4---+--1---~---1----t-----t-+----t--1----t--i
o~---~--~"""":,,....._
........,..,_...__..,,.....__._
......_.__.__.....,.....,,
_ __,
Oct
Jan
April
July
Oct
Jan
April
1931
1935
1934
FIG. 34-TREND OF COMBINED RELIEF AND REHABILITATION
IN RURAL COUNTIES BY AREAS*
October 1933 through June 1935
* Survey of current
changes in the rural relief population
Sourc.· Division of Rue arch, Statistics and Finance, F. E. R. A.
AF-1419, W.P A
Dig t1zed by
Google
148
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
than were dropped from relief while in Louisiana both relief
and rehabilitation cases decreased slightly.
FACTORS INFLUENCING RELIEF TRENDS
The ebb and rise of economic prosperity are interwoven with
administrative policy and racial differences in effecting the
fluctuations in the number of rural relief cases in the Southeast. In the first years of the depression many landlords could
no longer furnish food to their t~n;ints. Some sought to shift
this burden to the Emergency Relief Administration and were successful in certain loci!.lities. Soon, however, administrative
policies were formulated to minimize th is pr1tctice and relief
loads were reduced accordingly. For ex1tmple, the reduction of
the relief load in cotton counties in Louisiana by more than
one-half between November 1933 and H1ty 1934 was largely due to
an administrative order from the State office removing from relief rolls all tenants on plantations. 6
The rise in the price of cotton following the inaug11ration
of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration crop control program made it possible for a considerable number of farm operators to leave the relief rolls. Al though the small amount of
benefit payments received by tenants can hardly be considered
a factor in the reduction of the rural relief rate-since rnore
often than not benefit payments to croppers were applied by
landlords on back debts accumulated during the depression-the
rise in cot ton prices enabled m:my landlords again to extend
credit for subsistence to tenants and thus indirectly resulted
in removing fNnilies from relief rolls.
Governmental agencies to aid the farmer reached the farm operator on relief rnuch less frequently than they did his neighbor who was fortunate enough to stay off relief. A study of
rural relief and non-relief households in October 1933 revealed
that 62 percent of non-relief farm operators studied in the Old
South Cotton area received A.A.A. benefit payments, while this
was true of only 31 percent of the farm operators on relief in
the area. Similarly 14 percent of the non-relief farm operators
received assistance from the Fann Credit Administration, while
loans were made by this agency to only 9 percent of the farm
operators on reliet. 8
Partial, if indirect, credit due the A.A.A. for reduction of
the relief load is indicated by data presented in Table 54 and
Figure 36. In general, counties which had received the largest
6 rhe relter rate 1n the 32 cotton counties 1n Loutstana decreased rro■ 12.7
tn November 1933 to 6.0 tn Hay 1934. Source: Dlvlslon or Research, Statlsttcs, and Finance, r.E.R.A.
6KcConi1ck, T. C., C0<&puratiw Stvd1 of R~ral R•li•f and lo"-l•li•f 101'-S•lold~, W.P.A. Researc- Konogr&Pb II, 1985, Table 11, p. 83,
Dig t1zed by
Google
RELIEF AND REHABILITATION
149
I
~
3
~~.W/2
~
--
~
I
I
,n ~p~o~ion
__i__
___
I
Pro~~am
ooe rot 10n j
~~~~~~m~~~--~
:,
Works
I
0
~
2
".;;•
C
:,
J:
0 1:'.LLU-L,.='.LLLLL.,!.,UL.l.'.L.LL.LLLUL.l.'.L.LL.LLLUL.l.=
==UL.l.::..:.U=LLLUL<CLULLLUL
May
Nov
Mo y
Nov
Moy
1933
1933
1934
1934
1935
Nov
1935
FIG. 35 - NUMBER OF RELIEF AND REHABILITATION CASES
IN COTTON COUNTIES IN SEVEN
SOUTHEASTERN COTTON STATES
BY SIX-MONTH INTERVALS
Moy 1933 through November 1935
Sowce: Division of Research, Stotistics,ond Finance, F E.R.A.
AF-1413, W.P.A.
and Resettlement Administration
20r-----~--- ---------------------,
Per capita value of cotton and tobacco benefits
FIG.36- MEDIAN RELIEF-REHABILITATION RATES, MAY 1935,
IN COTTON AND TOBACCO COUNTIES OF
SEVEN SOUTHEASTERN COTTON STATES,
BY PER CAPITA VALUE OF
COTTON BENEFIT PAYMENTS
September 1933 through Morch 1936
r;r~e: Division of Research, Statistics, and Finance,
· A. ond Agricullural AdJustment Adm,n,srrnt,on
AF - 1415, W. P.A.
D1gt1zedoyGoogle
150
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
per capita amount of cotton and tobacco benefits since the inauguration of A.A.A. had the lowest relief and rehabilitation
rate,; in May 1935. Those counties which received benefit payments amounting to an average of less than $10 per capita had
a meaian ratio of families on relief and rehabilitation in May
1935 of 15.5 percent of the 1930 families, while counties with
benefit payr.ien ts amounting to an average of $25 or more per
capita had a median of only 8.6 percent on relief and rehabilitation. This association of low relief rates with high benefit
payments is also influencea by the fact that high benefit paymen ts are concentrated in counties where the prevalent cropper
system tends to keep families off relief.
r.,.1,
"-:enc,,
AJ< ,1 rOR...::c ((XJ, Tl[3' I N S[> [ N SOJTH[ASTlkN COTTON sa ns•
Bl P[fr~[ .\ I ~ f AIA IL1[ 3 Oh ij£ll l F illl D kt.MAd lll f Al lOI<'
AJ< O RY Plk CM'I I A ChOP 8lh H
------ - --·
-
-
-
--
--- -
Percco l o t 1,nr,
fd1\ 1 I 1 c ~ \lf•
d l llJ R L--,1,,01
Md)
- ----- -
II
N'~l ,t.'f
l dllOII
19JS
roWl!i;;~
l..(J u loll(..J
lhdn
uo
St~-$20
! I0-!15
19:JI\J
!70-57~
ts
-- ,,.,d
$25
Va lue
Sl6 . 7J
16 . 79
10
n
1•
6
10
8
6
ll
10
5
II
2•
6
6
8
7
J
2
12. l
10 . 7
9 .8
8.6
',O
)fl
21
11 . 1
15. ~
50
•
,,-r.,_ '"
M1N1.-1
o,,, er
H
•6
------
TotMCC~ 81:f"l ef I
~ M Lt.
I~
l
5
2()
---
:.;d
6~
28
u
lrlru1 .11, ::-e r c01t
Cv l tvn·
•
27
Lt- .... lh Wl 7, S
7. ~ l o 10
10 l o IS
15 lo 20
J fUJ O 'lfe f
i.-t
PAYM[ h r,
( 1913 ti r vugt-
;_,o 1
h , l ,ll
Per C-'D•
Ir
•J
19. J3
16.46
U. 09
14 . 6•
f•r•. •
•• co tton c 0 .,nt 1 i t, o"'• ,,., . .. ,c ... ao , ., , , ., ,. , or -o r• ot ' ""' -.rc-1 , fitr ,.
1•1 • c• - f r v,. c o t t o"
t -..Cco
co.... t, 1!, 0 .... "' . .. ,,~ to ~·• f f' III ·" ~• r o r , ..... l., 11 , .... 1... d lt (. f ., ,.,J .. , ,. 1,1 , . . .. ~••n le d , ,. t ob4CCO . ,, .,e..e (Ot1flt J .
Al • n• - • , 1 • •clvd ♦d :.., ,. ., \ f' r o ff' (l f' rel r e l,et or •11" ••1tPl 1t 1 t,o" p• oq r • ,. •• s op<!' r,1t•• • dv r , n4 .. , 1•JS ,., t l'le ( Ovnt,,
•• • •o•..,. , A,u,..s •• • G• o r',l ••· Lo w• • ••"" • 1111 , ,-1, ,1 1 •00, , , ortJ\ C1ro 1, ,.. , •n<I .1011 1 " c arol ,"'• ·
cl,,.f o r . . t.OII f r o,a D, v, 1 , o n of ■ • t.e ar (h, S t 1 \11t 1cs • • ,., , i n1 nc•.
d,,. , 0 ,- 1t ,on f r o,a , . , . , . • •-oo r • o"~ t <!' 1HS<!'1. 11, c ov nt ••• a 11<1 ,,,,, . . n c,,.,... of th "' 0 •4 INS.t r
, .1.1.,.
lf.lO ,
A<iministrative factors which were influential in determining
relief loads included attitude,; of landlords and tenants toward
relief, consideration of these attitudes by administrators, and
the funds and persounel available for meeting tne needs.
A study in December 1933 of 1,022 farm families on relief in
Alabama revealed that approximately 30 percent of the tenants
receiving assistance were helped by their landlords to get on
relief rolls. 7 On the other hand, many planter5 viewed relief
with suspicion because of its alleged •demoralizing" effects.
Many landlords doubtless feared that relief and renabilitation
would possibly result in stirring up a hitherto docile labor
supply. Acquiescing to landlords' requests, relief offices in
many rural cotton counties in the deep South were closed during
'. the 2 months of cot ton picking. Thus, the labor supply for cot.· · ton picking was augmented and standards of relief expenditures
7
Hotraouer, Karol 4, •11114 lcwd-f•flll"f I• ioUo,u alld I• lhf '" Alabau, Ilasearch Bulletin Seriea II, Jio. 9, D11'1a1on or lleaeareh, StatULlca, aao
r1nance, r.E.R.A., liove ■ ber
1936.
1,.
Digitized by
Google
RELIEF AND REHABILITATION
151
prevented from disturbing the local rate of wages for cotton
pickers.
The adoption of more stringent rules for receipt of relief
partially explains the decreasing relief rate in the rural
South. 8 Although new families were continually being forced to
ask for assistance, a number of r.lients were being dropped as
they became self-supporting. In most ~f the southeastern States
there was 1i. ttle or no precedent upon which to rely in determining relief needs. Prior to the fall of 1932, comparatively
little had been done on a State-wide basis in these States in
the field of public welfare and social work. Obtaining trained
personnel for positions in rural county relief offices was extremely difficult. Experience in relief administration during
1933 and the development of more capable case work personnel
enabled some of these States to weed out their relief loads
considerably.
Up to 1935 only two of the seven southeastern cotton States
had State welfare departments with mandatory provisions for
county welfare work, and one of these agencies was linti ted to•
child welfare. 9 When the depression set in, county administrative uni ts in the South were 1i ttle disposed and frequently
unable to increase their appropriations for assistance to the ]
needy. The result was that early in the relief progra111 a greater pa>portion of the emergency relief burden, including a large·
percent of the so-called unemployables, had to be borne by the;
Federal Emergency Relief Administration in the cotton States 1
than in most other States.
In October 1934 a study of 11 agricultural areas revealed
that the Eastern Cotton Belt, with 14 percent of its rural and
town r~ief cases having no worker, had a larger proportion of
unemployables on relief than any other area, with 3 except ions. to
This high rate of unemployability can be explained partially by
the relatively high proportion of unemployables among Negro relief cases. During the period July 1934 through June 1935, however, F.E.R.A. made a determined effort to shift unemployables
to the care of administrative county units in the South. An
important factor in the relatively low combined rural relief and
rehabilitation rate in the Eastel"ll Cotton Belt was this removal
8Beck, P.
9
and Forster, K. c., o;. c,t., p. 29.
The two State aaencles were the liforth Carolina State Board or aiart ties
o.
and Pllbllc weirare, created ln 1917, and the .Alabua Child weirare Departcreated ln 1919. ror 1e11s1at1·n trends ln the seYen States, see
Lowe, R. c., IAf,skat,ve fren4s ,ff Public R•l'•f and Assistaffce, D•c••b•r
31, 1939 tol11i, l, 193~, Dl'flslonorSoclal Research, W.P.4., Serles III,
No. 2, (to be publlahed); also Difests of Public fclfare Provisio,u 11"4er
Uc kw of A kabaaa., Arlcatlsas, G•ortia, .£011biaff4, Nissbsif>f>i, lorU. Caroiiu, and 8011t• CMol,IIO, DlYlaton or Boctal Research, W.P.4.
10
atandln&, T. o. and llanaua, A. ft., for•n 111111 D•f>endefft At• Gr011;s tff
llwal Clft4I fOMI R•H•f Cun ,ff October 1m,, Research Bulletin r-e. Dl'flaloa or fteaearch, Btatlatlca, and r1n1nce, r.1.11..A., April 8, 1936.
■ent,
./
I
152 LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
of cases for administrative reasons, 11 although, as pointed out
above, little local relief was available. 12 During the period
October 1934 to February 1935 the number of rural relief cases
with no e!'!ployable member decreased in this area by almost threefifths. At the same time five or the eight other a 6 ricultural
areas studied showed m11ch smaller decrellses, while three actually showed increases in the number of unemployables on relief
rolls.
The racial factor is more important in the Eastern Cotton
Belt than in other rural areas. Since the effects or racial
attitudes have always been felt by Negroes in the South in all
phases or life, it is only to be expected that these attitudes
would influence the administration of relief. The prevailing
policy in some localities has been that a Negro must be in m11ch
!
more desperate straits than a white person before he can qualify for relief assistance. Owing to the nature of Negro-white
relationships, a Negro would be much more hesitant than a white
man in pushing his req11est for assistil.nce if denied relief .
. In October 1933, three of the large cotton producing States in
the Southeast-Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana-had a Negro rural relief rate approximately one-half that for whites. 13
For this same month the relief rate for Negroes in rural areas
of cotton counties in llll seven Stil.tes of the Southeast was
slightly lower than that for whites (Figure 33), whereas in
other areas Negroes were over-represented. In February 1935,
the rlltio of Negro families to all families in the Eastern Cotton Area was about 6 percent less in the relief population than
in the general population of 1930. 1•
All of the under-representation of Negroes on rural relief
rolls cannot be explained by discrimin:ttion. There are other
factors which account in part for the lower Negro relief r:tte.
/
', i Many cotton planters prefer Negro to white tenants. 16
Hence,
· [ Negroes, more than whites, may have retained the economic protection of the p:tternalistic tenure system through the depression.
I
11 ror
exaaple, see HcOlll, K. H., Hayes, Grant and F'arnbam, Rebecca, Survey of Cases Rtt•oved fro■ Re li.ef Rolls in Sevttnieen Rural Counties in
Gco,rgia f<rr Ad•inisirative Reasons in Nay and Jun,e 1935, Research Bulletin
Serles II, No. a, D1v1s1on or Reller, Statlatlcs, and Finance, F'.E.R.A.,
November•• 1935,
12tiangus, A. R., the tren4 of Rural Relief, October 1933-Ociober 19311,
Resea.rcb Bulletin r-3, D1v1ston or Research, Statlstlcs, a.nd F'lnance,
F'.E.R.A., Harcb 22, 1935, p, 1; also Hulett, J. E., Jr., So■ e types of
Qn,e«ployability in Rural Relief Cases, 1ebruary 1935, Research Bulletin
H-2, D1v1s1on or Research, Btatlsttcs, and Finance, F',E.R.A,, October••
1935,
13 une•plo)'lleni Re lie/Census, October 1933, Dlvtslon or Research, Statistics,
and F'tnance, F',E,R,A., Report Number Two, Table 8, p. 1•.
14 Hangus, A. R., theRural legroonRelittf, february 1935, Research Bulletin
H-3, Dlvlslon or Research, Stattstlcs, and Finance, F.E.R,A., Octobo.tr 17,
1936, p, 1,
16Horrsommer, Harold, op. cit., p. a.
D1·1•zedbyGoogle
RELIEF AND REHABILITATION
153
Also the prevailing stanaard of living of Negroes in rural areas
of the South has been lower than that for whites. To sink below this level and thus become eligible for relief was difficult. Further111ore, it may be pointed out that Negro tenants in
the South tend to be concentrated in the rich soil belts in
which the commercial plantation system holds sway. 18 Of all
tenants in the seven southeastern cotton States, 53vercent were
Negro in 1930, while- of plantation tenants included in this
study 84 percent were Negro. As will be shown later in this
· chapter, the relief and rehabilitation rate a1110ng plantation ;
flllllilie3 has been considerably lower than that amone far11 faa- /
r
ilies in general in the Eastern Cotton Area, owing perhaps t~
the fact that displacement 01 tenants has been less frequen~ ,
on plantll.tions. 17 Evidently those tenants located on s■all,
indiYidual f11.ms on the fringes of the Cotton Belt have been
111ore likely to apply for relief than have families on plantations. The concentration of Negroes on plantations,with whites
more generally on small farming units, is, therefore, an important explanation of the under-representation of Negroes on rural
relief rolls in this area.
NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE DISPLACED TENANT PROBLEM
Huch of the public discussion relating to the effect of govern111ental programs on southern agriculture has centered around
the displacement of tenants by acreage reduction. This topic,
therefore, deserves more detailed analysis than the other f11.ctors affecting the relief picture.
A displaced tenant as referred to in this section is a for- -. /
mer cropper or other share tenant who no longer has a cropping Y
agrP.ewieut with a landlord, t.e., one who no longer receives advances for food and fertilizer for the production of a 111oney
crop, or the use of a work anit11al except for casual plowing.
He may not be physically displaced in the sense of having been
evicted from the plantation. In other studies it has been found
that ■any tenants who could not be furnished by the landowner
were still allowed to live, rent free, on the premises and were
also allowed to use patches of land for cultivation of subsistence crops, but few of these were living on plantations enu■er
ated in this study, 18 displaceiient probably being concentrated
18Ae
no"ted ln the Introduction, th• &Yerac• Jleld or cottDD per acre 11
nch hlsber on plantations than on all tal'lls ln the Southeuc. betas 263
and et& pound&, respect1n11, ln 1984, On plantattona operated bJ •ac•
banda, croppers, or other share tenant& (excludlns renters), the aYerac•
·11e1d waa 267 pound& (Table a&, chapter YI),
17
a.e next section, lature and btent or tbe Displaced Tenaat ProblH,
180n11 •9 dUplaced tenanta ..r• en1111erated la ca.partaon with a total or
a,eoe cropper and other all&l'e taut ra111e1 ea1111erased.
Dig t1zed by
Google
1
/
154
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
on smaller tracts and plantations where operations were abandoned. As a consideration of such an arrangement it was often
un'1erstoor1 that the displaced tenant would work for the landlord when his services were needed for odd jobs, such as fencing-, ditching, cotton chopping, or picking. Thus, thedisplaced
tenant was in reality reduced to the status of a casual laborer
with rent free perquisites.
The measurement of the extent and character of this dislocation of the tenant population is difficult, since such operators, if they cultivate as mnch as three acres of land, even
in the most casual manner, are classeri by the Census as tenant
farmers. It must also be kept in mind that the net number of
tenants may remain stationary or actually show a slight increase,
:vet there may be a consirierable displacement of older or less
desirable farmers by younger and more vigorous men.
In addition, the Census of 1935 enumerated as tenants many
families whose heads would fit the definition of displaced tenants given above. w If they cultivated as much as tl\.ree acres
of land, they fulfilled the Census definition of a tenant, but
in many cases this three acres or slightly more was in sketchily
cultivated subsistence crops and no regnlar money crop agreement was in force.
Although about the same number of tenants was recorded in
th~ 1935 Census of Agriculture as in that of 1930 in the seven
southeastern cotton States, the figures indicate a rapid rate
of turnover, a shift from Negro to white tenancy and much displacement in restricted areas, offset by increases in other
areas. As pointed out above, this displacement occurred mainly
before the inauguration of the A.A.A. program.
The shifts in tenancy between 1930 and 1935 are apparent
when tenants are segregated by color, by type of tenure, and by
cotton and non-cotton counties.
The colcr shift from 1930 to 1935 was a continuation of the
marked growth of white tenancy from 1910 to 1930. While the
number of white farm operators was increasing from 1930 to 1935
in the 7 southeastern cotton States by 100,000 (10.9 percent),
there was a decrease of 50,000 (-7.5 percent) among Negro farm
operators (Appendix Table 59). The number of Negro full owners increased slightly, this increase being partially offset
by a decrease in part owners. The tremendous decrease M!On!!'
Negro farm operators occurred in the "other tenant" status in
which there were 40,000 fewer tenants in 1935 than in 1930.
On the other hand, the decrease in the number of Negro croppers
was relatively smaller than that of white croppers. 10
19 census schedules were inspected to Yertry this· potnt.
2
°For anal)'e11 or Jfegro-Whtte dtrrerences 1n rar11 tenure shltt■, 19IIO-UIIS6,
1n North Carol1na, see Hobbs, 8. ff., Jr., the UnhJ•rsityo/lortll CoroHIIG
le~sleiier, December 5, 1936.
DigrtizedbyGoogle
RELIEF AND REHABILITATION
155
Shifts in the status of the tenant group baYe been in!luenced deci dedlJ by the cot ton and tobacco economy. 11 Croppers
decreased relati •ely lllOre in non-cotton and non-tobacco counties than in cotton and tobacco counties. In contrast other
tnants increased markedly in non-cotton and non-tobacco counties IAppendix Table 60 I. The result is that the nu111ber of all
tenants in cotton and tobacco counties decreased slightly while
in n011-cottoD and non-tobacco counties the number of all tenants
lacreased coasiderably.
A laqer proportion of cotton and tobocco counties show a
aarted decrease (110re than 5 percent I between 1930 and 1935- in
tile n'Dllber of both croppers and other tenants than is the case
with 101-cotto■ and non-tobacco counties (Appendix Table 611.
Croppers decreased 5 percent or 1110re in 53 percent of the cottoa and tobacco counties and in 44 percent of the non-cotton
aad non-tobacco counties. The net decrease in the nu11ber of
croppers in cotton and tobacco counties ranged as high as 52
pen:ent ia oae county. The difference between cotton-tobacco
and aon-cotton-tobacco counties is even 11ore striking for other
tenuts, tile percentage of counties showing noticeable decreases
being 2'1 and 0, respecthely. It should be noted that the great
aajori tJ of 101-cotton and non-tobacco counties showing decreases ia the total nuaber of tenants are located in Georgia
where the boll wee'Yil and soil erosion haYe resulted in a decided contraction iD cotton production. Most of these were cotto■ coanties uatll the hst t1110 decades.
TIie 1atwt-e of the displaced tenant problem ill C011111ercial
fal'lling areas, where there had been a noticeable decrease in
the auber of croppers, is indicated in a study carried on early
ia 1934 of 825 displaced tenant far111 f•ilies in eastern North
Carolha.•• fel'J few of the f•ilies included ill this study
had beea displaced before 1929. Three-fifths had lost fani open.tor statws during the years 1929 to 1932. In 1933 the nu11ber of displaceaents decreased sharply, only to rise again
slightly in 1934. The years 1931 and 1932 constituted the peak
period. Negroes seen to haYe been displaced earlier than whites.
A later North Carolina study of 142 displaced ten an ts2 1 reYealed
11 1a Clanulaa nlfta la uaaac1 la tbe soutlleut, tobacco u well•• cotton
. ., 1>• reek••• wltll . .l to'bacoo coant1 le defined H one ta Wlllch 10
,erceat or ■--• or tile ueo crop acreas• wu planted tn tol>&cco. There
are at tollMloo c1111atlea la lortb carouaa (I or 11111c11 are alao cotton
cOIIJltHa aa Cetlaed a'llo'H), I ta Soatll carouaa ( 1 ot 11111 cb 1 ■ alao •
oottN c-■q), ud a la Oeor11a. In tile 7 States tlleN are Be7 cotton
... tCIIIUoO ccaatlH and lie DOD-Cotton and DOll-to'bacco COlllltlH •
. .l&ellmallo OordOll V.-, O,.cU.
Cata tr• 8tud1 or lbaral l•Uet halllH la lortll Carollna
w ...,.. v. a1ac11n11 rcr tile •ortll carouaa .... r,enc, 1e11er Ad■ ln1a
cras1•• _,.... l&■ pl• coantlH laClNed la t.llU talnll&tlOll ..... lertle,
-.,..u.....
Gne••• -...., &114 VUlllJlltoa.
Digitized by
Google
156
I
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON TH~ COTTON PLANTATION
the same trend in displacement with a larger proportion being
displaced in 1934.
An analysis of the reasons why tenants were displaced, as
reported by both tenant and landlord, indicates that the most
important cause was the inability of landlords at the depth of
the depression to continue to finance all their tenants. They
were forced to cut down expenditures which meant that they could
not advance subsistence and production credit to as many families as formerly.
Fam mortgage foreclos11res also resu1 ted in many cropper families becoming unemployed. As noted in chapter II (Appendix
Table 8), approximately 10 percent of the lanrl in the southeastern cotton States has been taken over in rece-nt years by
land banks, depository banks, insurance companies, and other
corporations. County and State governments have taken over
fams for delinquent taxes, although it has 1Jsually heen the
policy of governmental units to do this only as a last resort.
Sometimes foreclosed land has been rented to tenants who could
furnish themselves, 26 the resident cropper families being evicted. In some instances the land has remained idle and tenants
allowerl to live in the houses and subsist on their own resources.
~nother cause for displacement of tenants has been a shifting from faming with croppers to fanning with wage hands by
some landlords. This practice seems to be localized in certain
areas, principally in the Mississippi Delta country. One county
fam demonstration agent, himself long a cotton famer of the
Upper Del ta, summed up the situation in 1935 as follows: "Sure
I'm going to shift to faming entirely by day labor next year.
It's the only way a landlord can make money now.j
It may be asked why, with the rise in the price of cotton,
displaced croppers have not been re-employed. It appears that
the A.A.A. to some extent "froze" the number of croppers employed in cotton culture in the Southeast at something like the
1932 figure. Cotton acreage allowed under the A.A.A. reduction
prof!ram was based upon acreage planted during the depression
years. It was during these years that croppers were being displaced as landlords were unable to finance them and as cocton
production was being cu'!"tailerl in the Southeast and expanded
in the &rnthwest. Thus, the acreage reduction program of the
A.A.A. in effect barred the return of thousands of families into the money crop tenant class in the Eastern Cotton Area. As
pointed out by the Brookings report on Cotton and the A.A.A., 25
the acreage reduction program has resulted in relatively 1i ttle
net displacement of croppers since 1932 except in a few areas.
24 certain land banks and insurance companies adhere strictly to tbia rule.
25
Richaras, Henry I •• The Brookings Institution, Washington, D. C., 1aa8,
pp. 150-162.
Digtized:iyGoogle
RELIEF AND REHABILITATION
157
However, without arguing the merits or flaws in the program,,'
the fact must be faced that thousands of families formerly em-·
ployed as cotton croppers cannot get a cotton crop to tend so
long as production is restricted. Youth recently coming of age
have had little chance to enter cotton production except as
casual laborers and have often been pani ally dependent upon
public assistance. If a displaced tenant or a youth is successful in getting a crop, some other cropper usually finds himself
adrift.
Displacement of cotton tenants seems to have taken place
largely from small fannin!l units rather than from plantations.
Table 55-PERCENT CHI.NG£ IN NL~R rF PLANTATION FAMILIES, 1930-193:>, HY COLUl ANO
BY TENLllE STATUS, BY AREAS
tCotton Plan tat ion Ent.nerat ionJ
Percentage Increase or Decrease 1930-1935
Total
Pl ant at ions
Report ing 4
AreJII
Toto I
Atlantic Coast Plain
Upper Pi~nt
Black Belt (Al"
Black Belt 101<
IJoper Delta
Hands
Croppers
Renters
DispLiced
Tenants
5.2
19. 5
1.4
6.0
18. 7
157.8
40
37
99
20.8
14.4
12 .1
24 .8
5.4
26.5
22. 3
54.1
JO. 2
34 .o
19.8
2 .4
6.8
24 .2
4. 7
29. 7
38.0
6. 7
22.8
- 4 .o
- 3. 7
-12.1
7 .0
31. 7
7.2
d
d
d
18.9
d
d
d
•
2.6
12 .0
1.4
12.6
-7.J
-5.B
d
d
- 2.J
4. 5
21.9
...
-12.8
23. 7
40.2
55.9
6.9
12 .6
-26.5
- 9.B
29
35
25
2•
•g.aie "01 -1v1ilaol• tar 110 plant11tions;
■ 1'14
Negro
Share
Tenants
J6.5
46
19
Arkansas qiver
White
Tenure
Wage
7 .9
82
Red qi ver
Total
526
9t
Looer Delta
lluscle Sh-..ls
Interior ?1ain
Mississippi Stuffs
Color
of •l'l.aa 1.107 . .,.. ••11• •and•,
J.J
27.9
7.4
16.1
-4.6
-3.6
42.6
70.6
80.8
16.4
38.9
50.0
20. 5
- 3.4
- 0.3
d
I
- 7. 5
12 .8
9.9
20.5
5.2
-10.6
•
29.6
18.9
-
•
d
d
d
•
-•
-
lt)O oaae i t 1,101 ,.,.ilies ct .«IOI'! 61' "r• wtdte and 6,191 ••re legro
■ l'lare tenants, 17 ■ renters and•• displ ■cecl tenant1.
,.:to cropptr1, tr)
'cropJer alld ot..,.r Sl\are uunl . . jorit7.
clt11ler ..,.jorlty.
d,,,o D&H In• U••--
n
,_i I ie1.
The 40 counties included in this study of plantations show a
decrease from 1930 to 1935 of approximately 9,000 tenants, 5,000
of whom were croppers. This means that there were 7 percent
fewer tenants in these counties in 1935 than in 1930. However,
the number of families on plantations included in the study
tncreased from 1930 to 1935 by approximately 8 percent I Table
551. In only ti«> areas, Red River and Arkansas River,was there
a slight decrease. For the most part the increase was distributed fairly evenly over the 5-year period. Increase in the
number of Negro faBlilies was slight, while the number of white
faailies increased by more than one-third. The greatest increases in the number of plant at ion families occurred in the
wage hand and renter groups. Croppers and share tenants increased only slightly. The relatively small group of displ,aced
tenants increased from 64 to 165 in number.
Changes in crop acreage may partially explain increases
or decreases in the number of plantation faJ11ilies employed
oig1 -z-d by
Goog e
158
L\NDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
(Table 561. Considering all areas together there was practically no change in the amount of crop acreage on plantations.
Only in the Red River and Arkansas River areas were there significant decreases, an average of 4land 65 acres less per plantation in the respective areas. Also, these were the only 1treas
showing a decrease in the number of families.
Cotton plantations were probably employing more families in
1935 than in 1930, with the exception of a few specific localities. The only indication available as to whether as many f~milies were being emp1oyedoncotton plantations in 1935 as during the period 1920 to 1930 is the number of vacant houses 211
and the amount of idle crop land (Table 571. Of the 646 plantations, 180 or more than one-fourth, reported an average of
Table 56-CHAIG5 I~ CROP 4Cl1£4G£, 1930-193~. ~ 513 PlANT4TIONS, 8Y NlEAS
(Cotton Plantation EnurwrationJ
4reo1
Total
Atl.1ntic Co1st Plain
,~,·
Upper P , ~ t
91ac~ 11,ol!
Blad llelt. IBJC
Total
N!Pber le res fncrease
Plant.11tions
Reporting"
or Decrease
19l0--19J'>
~rcent Increase
or f)e,crease
Number 4.c res
Increase
or ()e,crease
per Plantation
513
m
o.,
J7
08
195
,.1
-2.5
1. J
- s.,
36
-
1.4
12.9
3. 7
99
J6?
2,001
,51
8. 7
22.0
Upper 0.11!
91
8'
0.9
5.4
lower Oe,I h
u
24 3
-2.6
1.2
-1.8
I. 7
- 5.5
2.8
-10.J
6.4
-40.6
-65.2
Muscle Sh<nls
Interior Pl-lin
"issi o;sippi Bluffs
Red River
lrkan'i-1s River
19
2A
3'
23
IA
-~---
-
-
~J
289
216
- 93'
-1, l7J
-7.J
-6.8
"Dal a !IOI •v•i laol• tor IJJ ,1a... 1at ions.
bcropper •"'O ot-.r sfl•r• '•"•"'' ••1orilr.
c •• ,,,., -,.,,,,.
2.7 vacant houses. They were reported most frequently in the
Arkansas River and renter-majority Black Belt areas. The Upper
Del ta and Arkansas River areas had the largest number of vacant
houses per plantation reporting.
For all areas an average of 34 idle ti 11 able acres was reported for each vacant house. The Arkansas River with the highest frequency of vacant houses on plantations had the low average of 14 idle tillable acres per vacant house. Even if no
land were allowed to go fallow, cotton plantations would have
been able to house and provide crop land for less than 5 percent more families than were resident upon them at the time of·
the survey. 27
26 0011 those houses were counted which could be Made habitable by repairs
or $50 or less.
27 on the 6411 plantations In IQ3' there were Q,414 tenant and laborer raalltes (Appendix B, Table E), and 4Qt Yacant houses (Table 571. There was
probably no ldle land on a rew or the plantations with vacant houses.
159
RELIEF AND REAABILITATION
DISPLACEMENT OF TENANTS AND RELIEF
I
i
.•
,
I
' I
,.,.I
I
-"
Displacement of tenPnts, principally croppers, is an important factor in the rural relief situation in certain localities
in the Southea!4t. Shifts from tenancy into the ranks of casual
employment have resulted in relegating large numbers of farm
families to the relief level. In five counties in the Old South
Cotton Area in October 1933 a large proportion of the heads of
relief families usually engaged as farm operators had been displaced. 28 Of the heads of relief cases who reported fann owner
as their usual occupation, 75 percent still retained that status, while 18 percent were unemployed. On the other hand, of
Table 57-PUHIATIONS WITH TILLABLE .CRt:S IDLE AND WITH VACANT HOUSES,• BY AREAS, 19}1
(Collon Pl dl'llat ion E.numerat ion)
Total
Atlantic Codsl Plain
Upper Piecnont
Blac• Bel I IA)•
Bla<k Belt IBJ 0
Uwer Delta
Plantat ion
Report i O)I
Report, n~
\Jae.ant
Haus.es
,91
2.7
16,67,
3'
2,
11
61
91
151
2.,
1. 2
1.9
2.6
,.1
636
3'3
1.8'7
3, s,s
,,681
27
31
N""'oer
tat ions
Vacant
Houses
Vaunt
Houses
Vaca-it
Hou ses
6,6
IBO
28
56
IO
1B
'°
112
9
32
23
29
99
35
35
37
28
m
5D
22
llississippi Bluth
Reg River
'7
Ri wer
lole Acres
on Plantat.ons
Percent
Report i ng
Pian-
Looer Del la
lluscle Shoals
Inter ior Plain
Araansas
Numoer ot
Vacant
Houses per
Plar,tations
Report in~
Tot a l
Area
30
28
29
01
Idle AG,eo
pe,
Vacant
House
30
'3
31
-7
28
27
1. 9
1, 78,1
66
23
10
13
6
17
28
21
519
38
L4
2.9
2. 7
3.6
1.230
B25
500
883
123
22
31
1'
-
-
16
62
•1,u. . ruors .-re '"ur.ct~ to eflt•r OfllJ u10•• waca,it f!OIIMe • j vd, .. to N
111 . 00 or lea■ ,.,.1r .•
-
-
-
14
Jl.llllita'1e. er ■ JilicJil co.,,1411 ff . . . . N ■ IU•
111 troi,per afld otMr lf\tire te•11t Mjorit7.
cle11ter •jorH,.
relief families whose heads reported cropper as their usual occupation, only 40 percent were so engaged in October 1933, while
53 percent were unemployed. Of those whose usual occupation
was other tenant, 73 percent were still so engaged and 19 percent were unemployed.
In the Eastern Cotton Area 29 agricultural displacement hao
affected an even larger percentage of the cases on relief in
June 1935 than was revealed in the October 1933 survey (Table
581. The proportion of displaced farm owners was s111aller in
June 1935 I 16 percent I, but the proportions of croppers and other
tenants who were unemployed were higher, being 57 and 26 percent,
respectively. Very few of the cases not employed in their usual or a higher agricultural status had other employment. Host
of those who had obtained some other type of employment were
28KcCo!"111Ck, T. c.• o~. cit., Tables 544 and B, pp. 106-107.
28
&.ir•e1 or Olrrent Changes 1n the Rural Reller Population (32 aaaple counties), D1•1a1on or Soctal Research, W.P.A.
Digitized by
Google
160 LANDLORD AND TBN~NT ON TH~ COTTON PLANTATION
still in agriculture, only :tn insi~nificut proportion having
shifted to non-agricultur:tl jobs.
A hr 6 e 1930-1935 decre-'lse in the number of t.en:1nts is a factor in tli~ r1Jr::i.l relief sitauion. This is indic-'lted by a sep-'lr-'lte Ubul ::i.t ion ot current ii.nd usual occupation of the hellds
of June 1935 rural relief households in eight counties which
showed in the 1935 Census of Agriculture a decrease of more th11.n
10 percent in the number of all tenants (Table 58). When compared with the total 32 counties, these a selected counties had
Table ~lllR(NT Al() USUAL OCCUPllTION CF RUlAL RELIEF HQ.&HJLJ)S IN Tl£ EASTERtl COTTON AREA,
JUNE 1935
132 5-le Coont ies)
Usual Occupal ion I last 10 Years)
Current Occupet ion
IF~bruary✓ une
Total:
19)~)
Al I Fa,,. Operators
---
N..-r
~rcfl'nt
Owners
Other Te,,ants
Croppers
"'"'' _,,,,
2,170
100.0
458
100.0
1,066
100.0
100.0
56.2
82.1
36.8
111.0
3.3
1.3
4.,
).1
En,ployed in usual or highe,.
agricultural status
~
E"'Ployi!d in IOlll!'r
agricultural status
[nip I oyed i n non-
agriculture
Unen,ployed
1.5
0.9
1.9
1.2
39.0
15. 7
57.0
25.7
S,leclN Collllt111•
N..-r
l?rcent
154
562
100.0
72
100.0
336
100.0
100.0
agricultural sU1tus
43.1
72.2
25.0
68.8
E"'l'loyed in ,,_,
agricultural status
5. 7
-
8.3
2.6
Total:
.
[ffll)loyed in usual or higt-er
[niployed in non-
agriculture
Unen,p I oyed
0.3
-
0.6
-
50.9
27.8
66.1
28.6
.litlrll M1Klad co■ ntl . . la •ic• tM MCrHM h1 ..... r . , all , . . .11,a ,.,._,.,. . . . 111 . . . . . . , ,.
"rceftt •• detereinecf •1 ,,._ 1t,t ce11a111 or .t.1rlc ■ lt11re •
...,rca1
. . n-•1 of C•rre,it CM••
I■
IM
l■ ral
hi let
,-..1au ...
llwl1le11 et MCi•I •••rcJ1 •••
,.a.
a noticeably smaller proportion of heads usuitlly engaged 11.S
farm owners or croppers who were currently so employed, with a
much larger proportion unemployed. Among other tenants the same
situation existed but the difference was slight. In the selected counties twice as large a proportion of croppers had been
demoted to the status of farm laborer. gvidently in those areas
wliere there h::i.s been a relatively large decrease in the num~er
of all ten::i.nts during recent years, displaced croppers constitute a larger portion of the relief load. In areas of heavy
tenant displacement, loss of farm ownership appe-'lrs to be relatively more frequent also.
A fnrther idPa of the importance of displ::i.cement of tenants
as a factor in the relief situation may be obtained when it is
Cig1
zedbyGoogle
RELIEF AND REHABILITATION
161
noted that in Eastern Cotton Area counties in June 1935 unemployed croppers and other tenants accounted for 37 percent of
the agricultural relief cases, or approximately 20,000 families
in the whole area. 30 The 1934 study of nine counties in North
Carolina, considered fairly representative of the State, exclusive of the Mountain region, revealed that displacement of tenants had been an important factor in the relief problem, though
not as important as in the Eastern Cotton Area proper. In the
counties included in this study 24 percent of agricultural relief cases were displaced croppers or displaced other tenants. 31
In a number of counties in eastern North Carolina displaced
tenants comprised more than three-fourths of the agricultural
relief cases in 1934. Theconclusion is reached that, although
tenant displacement may not have caused excessively high rural
relief rates generally, it has been an important factor in the
relief situation in some cotton areas.
RE LIEF AWONG
PLASTAT IOS
1-'AM I LIES
The unique an.ct in some ways feudalistic characteristics of
the plantation system lead to especial considerations of relief
needs andreliefpolicies relativetofamilies resident o,, plantations. Considerable area differences may be noted in the
percentage of plantation families who have received relief 32
(Table 591. In the whole Eastern Cotton Belt it appears that
l plantation family in every 5 received relief at sometime
during the period January 1, 1933 to June 30, 1935, but the
largest proportion or relief among plantation families seeo1c;
to have been concentrated in 5 of the 11 areas covered in this
study: Red River, Arkansas River, Mississippi Bluffs, Interior
Plain, and Lower Delta. In these areas the proportion of plantation families who received relief at any time ranged from 29
percent in the Lower Delta to 50 percent in the Red River, the
areas of heavy relief on pla.ntat ions all being located in the
three States of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Relief
among plantation families seems to have been especially infrequent in the Upper Delta and the Atlantic Coast Plain where
only 2 and 4 percent, respectively, had relief status. In the
Muscle Shoals, Upper Piedmont, and 2 Black Belt areas only approximately l plantation family in every 10 had been on relief
rolls.
30
oata on tlle ln the Dlvlslon ot Social Research, :,. P.A. as obtained tro11
the survey ot Current Changes ln the Rural Reller Po1>ulat1on
31
Blackwell, Gordon w., op. cit. Sample counties Included In tnls tabulation were Alexander, Bertie, Columbus, Greene, Iredell, Onslow, Stoltes,
Tyrrell, and Washington • .l total ot 3,374 rural rel let cases were Included In the s•ple.
32
At
so■etl■e
during 1933, 19:54, or 1935 to July 1.
D1gt1zedoyGoogle
162 LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
The tenure status of plant at ion f,ni 1i es see11s to haYe a
dec;ded bearing upon relief status I Table 60). aa As is to be
expected, moreof the displaced tenant fainilies-those faniilies
liYinv on the plantation "ith neither a crop nor a definite work
T,mle ~~urr ,;rans~ ~.IU l'\.A-Tlfl;)N FAMILIES. BY 4REAS
tCollan Pl1n11tion (nuMer-1t i onJ
fot.11
r.,,..i l ie,
Rece i"'eo ~I icf 1
tteport i""•
Did Not RK~i-,e Rel i ef
ArM
Tot,1
AtlW1tic Co1st Ph in
11ptierP;-1
Black Belt CA)•
Block 11th 1111"
U-r Dell•
laRr Delta
11,sc le Sh01ls
Interior Ph i n
Mississippi Bluffs
qed Riwer
N-r
l\,rcen1
~uflllier
S.147
100.0
I . l5l
tOC.. O
100, 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•2c
1n
&! 1
7'1'
131
'!'17
1'17
1,337
~I
212
Al
75
100.0
100.11
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
77',
ArkVIS'IS Ri.er
18
f.~
"'-r
Perconl
7' .6
3,9&1
11.•
• •2
,os
11.!I
605
723
!I.•
70!
2
10. 1
1-~
10•
28 .9
r.,.t
31
1 .R
486
lOf;
3f. s
41. l
'>O.C
166
97
4) . I
IH
~
- - - - - - -- -·
•1a1• .._, ••-'•h ,., n c•••·
'a.c•••••
P.Wf'al reli•f •t ~ ti ""' :Jl■ t•"• t••
. . , i N ,...,,., I, •n Uil,_..,V. J u - JI , ""' •
Percent
179
i
816
211
105
l"-!
9'i.8
91 .6
'111 .7
119 . 9
98.5
71.l
92.7
!;3.~
r,e,1
50,0
'16.9
'c,....., _.. .,_, • .,. ,~ .., • •10,, 1, .
.... ,.., ._ t9ri h.
agreenent-had receiverl relief 143 percent) than "as the case
with fMilies with ordinary tenant or laborer status. Croppers
an~ other share tenants hai1 been on relief much •ore frequently
than renters or wage hands, probably because relief was neederl
Teble 60-ll:LID" STATUS IF 5,171 P\ANTATIOII FAMILIES,
~ 1934 TEIIJIE STATUS
(Co\lGII Pl . .. 1a1 ion EJuNrat iml
,_,.
Percent lleca ivecl llt li ef
~
Stat•
19'4"
Dur;ng 19)3, or
1934, or l93!'i
to Jul1 I
~ring
During
193?
19}4
During 19'5
to Jul1 I
All 1..; liu
12.6
19. l
14,3
3.1
llonten
Other share ,__,.ts
er-.
13.3
34.2
2• .9
ll.5
42.6
8. 3
27 . 0
17.6
8.0
14 .9
8.3
2.0
2.1
9ogeh-s
0 isplaced t.....,ts
25.2
14 .4
8 ,4
34.0
3.1
1.3
25.5
._,..,.,...,_r
,erca., • • ,-. ' • ' • ••• .,.. •• ,-. . _ ,...,.. , , .... ia
i • . , .;
•-r• •••••• ,.., ..,. .n ..._ ••"••••
.,, M
IN
primarily where the furnishing system ceaserl to function. One
other share tenant in every three had received relief at one
ti111e or another, while this was true of only one wage hand in
eTery ei ~ht. An analysis of yearly relief rates clll!Ong plant at ion
8a.reour• status la ror 1934; M percent or the rulllea "er• ID tbe ....
unar• atatua In 1918 as 1984; tbe tenure statue ror 1986 "as not aYallable.
Digitized by
Google
RELIEF AND REHARILITATION
163
families reveals that alTTloSt as many were dependent at least
in r,art upon relief in 1934 as in 1933. Except in the case of
the few rii.splaceri tenant families, almost no relief was given
among plantation families during the first half of 1935.
Monthly relief rates a111ong these plantation families during
1934 anrl the first 6 months of 1935 indicate that after a peak
in February 1934 the number on relief among all tenure groups
except displaced tenant families decliner! rapidly anrl steadily
to June 1935 with almost no seasonal variations from the trend
IAppenriix Table 62 and Figure 371. The fact that the decrease
Number of fomilies on relief
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1934 Jonuory
Februory
Morch
April
Moy
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
1935 Jonuory
February
Morch
April
11111 Displaced
f12J Woge
Tenants
Hands
l!::Jcroppers
□ Other Shore Tenants
□ Renters
M<1y
June
FIG. 37 - INCIDENCE OF RELIEF AMONG 5,033 PLANTATION
FAMILIES, BY TENURE STATUS
January 1934 through June 1935
Source, Appendix table 62
AF-1417, WPA
in the relief rate amonj? plantation families between January
1934 and June 1935 (7.4 percent to 0,6 percent I was m11ch greater
than was the decrease in the combined relief and rehab i 1 it at ion
rate in the Eastern Cotton Area riuring the same periori 117.1
percent to 10. 7 percent I i nd'icates the effect of new arimi ni strati ve policies. These were designed to end the practice among
some plantation operators of shifting to the reli.ef ariministrati-on the burden of advancing to tenants short term credit for
living expenses.
Also, landlords doubtless were enabled by
better mtton prices again to assume their usual responsibilities for advancinr, food. It should be noted that, aside from
minor fluctuations, the number of displaced tenant families receiving relief remained fairly constant.
D1gt1zed!:JyGoogle
164 L~NDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
Moreover, a rather heavy turnover in the plantation relief
population is suggested by these monthly relief rates. In only
2 months in 1934, January and February, was the relief rate as
111uch as half that for the entire year. Although the relief rate
was declining throughout 1934, it appears that new families were
TM>le tll-A'IEl!.IGE ,a Of t£.w; Of l!CLIEF AND NOii-RELiEF PLANTATION
FMIILIES, BY TENURl STATUS, 193•
ICotton Plantation Emnera.t ,on)
AK:eived Relief•
Total
Did Not Receive Relief
Tenure
A-..erage
Age of Head
N.-r of
Avera9e
F1n1i Ii es
AQ• or HNd
llbaber of
Fa1111lies•
Aw,rage
Age of tte.d
-ber or
f•ilies
Total
5,142
41.2
1.1~
Wage hand•
Croppers
Other 1hare tenants
ltnters
Displaced t-nls
R5'
n.1
98
35.5
2.872
716
tl53
•t.O
709
2'4
87
20
'1.9
2.u,
tll.2
50.tl
52. 7
Status
46. 7
4tl.tl
50.4
47
•3.5
3,960
,o.&
755
32.8
4119
5tl5
27
45.9
,o.&
4tl.O
48. 7
&a.c.1.., ,_...,., rwl Mr ••rl .. ltJJ. at,a, er l"I •• .,.,, 1.
•1ac1•• la f • i l l • ..... nlaef •&.a&aa . . . • • ■-IIUI ■•
coming on relief rolls in significant numbers, replacing old
clients.
Contrary to the situation generally found throughout rural
areas of the Eastern Cotton Belt, proportionately more Negroes
than whites on plantations had received relief, the percentages
being approximately 23 and 18, respectively.
T•l• 12--SIZI
l1f
l'UIITATICII F•ILIE5 AIID IWI.Ol'UlllTY OF ...-.s,• 1'1 IIELIIF llllW _,
I'/ 19" STAM
ICotton Plantation ltularationl
Ter-.,re St•tus
I
bOer
of
NUf!Oer of
Porsono
per
~ - i i i ~ ~.. 1.,
Tot•I
5.159
,.2
Ranters
Other share tenants
Croppers
•-ea ~ s
Oiaplac«t tenants
651
715
2,880
·'·'-~
•9
5.0
2.9
J. t
- ...
llrluiwed Aitl 1et•
Total
19)t
· --
11.iat:er of
f.ilplo,•ble
Persons
per r.,.:.i 1,
..,...r of
2.A
2. 7
2.5
1.9
t.•
·- -
,..,_
..,...rof
Parsons
of
per
Perso ...
f•ilies
f•ily
per Fi1111ily
'•ilin
2,5
,.11,
l,t&t
2.5
Did Not Aac.eive fl91 ief
Nulllber of
E,aployable
87
2,,
709
102
20
5. l
,.5
,.,
,.5
2.9
J,O
2.6
2.5
2.0
l.6
or
!!83
•H
2,152
1111
21
F•ilw
,. l
5.0
,.,
..,._.rof
£,aployal,le
flerlOM
aer F•il•
2.,
2.,
•• 5
2. 7
2.8
2.5
t.8
,.z
1.,
-rll.
. . i•te• ,-rs ef ... • - ... , • - ell1e te 11e1, •itll f•ra
lltlec•I .... ,. . . . ,.., ,-ll•f lll•ri,. l " ' • lt),I. •r 19,S te J•lr 1.
IS f-llle1 . . . . . ,..H•f sa.1 . . . . , ,i,ot ••■ i1Mle.
c,.,.._
The average age 01 tne neaas or tam11tes Who had received
relief was regular-ly higher than that of non-relief fMlilies,
regardless of tenure status (Table 61 l. The average age of
heads of wage hand families was considerably less than that of
heads in any tenant group. Other shl!.re tenants and renters
were much older than croppers. The displaced tenant fa.milies
had still older heads.
Plantation families who had received relief tended to be
larger than those with no relief status, the average size of family beiug 4.4 and 4 .1, respectiYely (Table 62). This difference
01s11t~ed
tivGoog(e
RELIEF AND RERABILITATIOK
165
is noticeable to a significant degree only among wage hand and
cropper families, while 8lllOng displaced tenant families the nonrelief group shows larger family units. Evidently a large family, usually considered one of the cropper's greatest assets,
did not tend to keep plantation families off relief. Indeed
with acreaee reduction a large family may now be a liability to
a cotton tenatlt. Scarcity of employable members in the household did not seem to account even partially for the need of relief assistance, as relief families on plantations had as large
an a-rerage nuaberofeaployable members as non-relief families,
2.5 as compared with 2.4.
Only 1 family in every 100 enumerated was classified as a
displaced tenant faaily, that is, a family without a definite
crop or wor~ agreement with the landlord. Of the 49 displaced
tenant families interviewed on the 646 plantations, 33 contained
no employable member and 16 had able-bodied members. Families
with widowed or Ullllarried females as heads were found most frequently in the unemployable group, there being 18 such cases.
The heads of 13 faailies were above 64 years of age with no person o-rer 16 in the household able to help with farm work, and
2 family heads were physically disabled. Negroes were noticeably o-rer-represented in the displaced family group.
It appears ob-rious that as tenants become unable to tend a
crop they usually leave plantations, just as in industry workmen must look forward to the time of forced retirement. Some
few widowed or aged tenants are allowed to continue on plantations, however, picking up occasional odd jobs and tending a
S111all garden patch rent free. The fact that only 4 displaced
tenut families were found among the more than 2,500 families
interviewed in the 5 areas, where the largest and most commercialized plantations are found !Upper Delta, Mississippi Bluffs,
Red River, Arkansas RiYer, and Interi.or Plain I, indicates that
f•ilies are not allowed to remain on these plantations after
becoaing an econ011ic liability.
COSTS OP RELIEF AND SIZE OF RELIEF BENEFITS
Per capita expenditures for emergency relief have been lower
in general in the southen States than in other parts of the
country I Figure 38), yet more tha, 2137 million dollars were expended for emergency relief purposes in the seven southeastern
cotton States during the 33-month period January 1933 through
September 1936 I .Appendix Table 631. This 111eans an expenditure
of Sl7.49 for evet'J person living 1n these States in 1930. By
States, the per capita amount varied from S7.25 in Alabama to
S24.41 in Louisiana. The per capita figure for the seven southeastern cotton States was 56 percent of the per capita figure
for the country as a whole
Dig tized by
Google
166
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
The South has relied to a larger extent upon Federal funds
for handling the relief situation than has been the case in
other parts of the country. More than 96 percent of the obligations incurred for emergency relief during the period January
1933 through September 1935 in the seven States considered in
this study were met with Federal funds !Appendix Table 631, as
compared with 72 percent of the obligations in the country as
a whole. When the per capita amount of Federal funds is considered, differences between the southeastern States and the
Nation are not so great. Especially in the matter of State
participation hast he South lagged behind. Of the seven States,
FIG. 38 - PER CAPITA AMOUNT OF OBLIGATIONS INCURRED
FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
1933 through Septem ber 1935
F
~l!!t,wor,,-1✓
Dolla rs
Source MONTHI _Y REPORT OF TH E FE R A ,
October I lh rough Octobe r 31. 19 5 , fable 5 , p 52 ,
per top1 ICJ f,gures based on 1930 census dolo
AF - 12 15, W PA.
only three-Arkansas, Alabama, and Mississippi-have made appreciable contributions and even here State funds amounted to less
than 1 percent of the total.
Just as the southeastern cotton States expended a much smaller per capita amount for emergency relief, so too was the size
of relief benefits per family assisted comparatively low (Table
631. From the beginning of the relief program there was a
significant increase in the size of relief grants per family
assisted in areas outside of principal cities throughout the
country. In four of the seven southeastern cotton States the
proportionate increase was decidedly larger than the increase
in the country as a whole. Yet the average size of relief grants
in September 1935 in each of these St ates was from 22 to 60
percent less than the national average of $20.23 for all cases
C1g1
zedbyGoogle
167
RELIEF AND REH ABIL I TATION
outside of principal cities. The average r elief grant per case
for September 1935 in the south eas t ern States ranged from $8 . 00
in South Carolina to $15.77 in Louis i ana.
In the Southeast as in othe r areas average amounts expend ed
for agricultural cases were lower than for non-agric ultura l
on es (Appendix Tabl e 641. The median size of relief grants was
~ flllhC IP4L Cil l [S) IN UNITE D S14TE5
AND S[ V[N SOUT>t: AST[QH COTlOI, STA TES, S[PT["8ER 1933. 193 4, A
19;5
Tab l• 6)- MOH THLY Rlllff 9[H[ FI T P[R FA• ILY {Ol/TSIOC
Sta t e
-
-
-
-
--
Seotemb-r 19'33
S.ot <""b<!r 1q34
Seot .,.,.t,,,r 1915
$ 12. 69
, 18.%
\ 20 . 23
6 . 26
4. 85
8 .59
l J . 47
5.52
6. 19
12. 59
11.26
10 . 32
17. 77
10. 14
Q_ 3 1
9.67
-- -- - - Perc f' nt lnc re1se
Septf'fflb<!r 1733 to
S,epte"'boi>r l'JJ5
--
tin i t ed St a te s
Al•bamo
Arka nS3 s
Geo rg i11
lou i s ian.1
t4 iss is.si po i
Nort h Ca rol i na
Sout h Carol i n~
1 .51)
59 . •
11 0. 1
13.1 5
IJ.n
1n .1
12 . 17
15. 77
11.49
41. 7
17 . 1
108. 2
II. 50
as.s
q_oo
6.)
Sll.84 for agricultural cases and $14 .64 for non-ag r i cultura l
cases. While 90 percent of the agricultural relief ca s es in
the Eastern Cotton Area recei ved l ess than $20 duri ng the month
of June 1935, this was true f or only 78 percent of those whos e
usual occupation was non-agri cultu r al . The medians were $8.98
and Sl2.44, respectively. Wi th t he except i on of the Western
T, b l • CA - AV[ QAGI: • AMOUh'T OF RELI EF RE C[ IVED BY RlllAL H<lJS[l«JLDS DUWG JU-.: 1935 , •
BY USUAL OCCUPII T IOH OF T>t: >£AD, IH Tf£ [ ASTEQN COTTON Ali[A
132 Samp le Cou• t iesl
Medi;iin ~ n t of Re l 1e f
Usual Ckcup1t i on
of Hi!ad
-'gr icultura l ca~ s
Oono rs
Tt rtrr1 o ts
Croppers
ram l abore rs
.
~ g r i cult ura l c.as e s
All Ca se,<
'Ml i l e
Negro
S 8 . 98
9 . 47
10. 19
10. 09
7 . 75
SI0 . 0 5
9. 58
11. )◄
10. 49
8.91
S7.00
8 . 88
5.98
8 . 69
6 .55
12.U
13 . 75
9.92
-di•"·
b l•cl -, s i •• or CON I opo11od , r.-oo• "Od . or tie s .ct dur i ft9 ·,~ _,,..,,_ _
c,...d
Oft, . , • • e,r l t ullutel
c•u• .,
•ttoa l . 11• . . , .
•ii•.,.,
•>•
I.Ill . . , , . : . . . . . . . . , . , ~ ,
no-.. r i t•lt• r •I cases or ~
I. SIi -er • 9flile. al'IO
....,,o.
Su r • •, or Cvrr• "'t C'- • ~ •• i 11 111• t vt'II t• li er ,.,,,v 1a1 1011 . Di.• i 1 ; 0 ,.. o r Soc i • I
SO.Or e a ;
,.,.,.,clil, w. P' . a.
Cotton and Appalachian-Ozark Areas these medians were much lower
than those for other areas . They rioubtless reflect an effort
to keep relief grants in line with the low wages prevailing in
agriculture.
Significant differences may be noted in the size of relief
grants in June 1935 in the Eastern Cotton Area when calculated
by tenure status and color of head I Table 641. Farm tenants
Digitized by
Google
168
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
received larger grants on the average than farm owners. The
average size of grants to farm laborers during the month of
June-$7 .75-was much smaller than that to other agricultural
cases. In all J?roups Nerroes received noticeably smaller grants
than whites.
Various other studies have shown that rural Negroes in the
gastern Cotton Area have generally been under-represented on
relief rolls, have received smaller relief benefits than whites
and have been less likely to be assigned to work relief jobs. 84
This situation is to be expected in Yiew of racial attitudes
in the South. It is probable that relief officials accepted
the low scale of living of the great majority of rural Negroes
as the basis for determining budgetary deficiencies. This may
have resulted in fewer Negroes being considered eligible for
relief and !or smaller grants being extended to those cases accepted for relief. 36
The average relief grant figur.es given in Table 64 for rural
cases by occupation of the head and by color must be qualified
to some extent. The group of cases represented in the sc111ple
contained only cases which were not opened, reopened, or closed
during the month. In these figures the size of family was not
taken into account, nor could the extent to which relief was
only supplementary to private income be considered.
It should not be assumed that these cases received a like
amount 12 months in the year. Turnover in the rural relief population was rapid as closings were balancedbynewly opened and
reopened cases. This fact was made evident above where it was
shown that al though 14 percent of the plantation families had
received relief in 1934, less than 5 percent received assistance
in any single month, with three exceptions I Appendix Table 621.
A study of a sample of rural and town families on relief rolls
rluring the period Hay through October 1934 revealed that less
than one-third of those in the Eastern Cotton Area received relief during all 6 of the months. 18 It is therefore evident
that the great majority of rural cases were dependent upon relief for only a part of each year.
Comparison is sometimes made between the size of relief grants
to tenant families and the usual amount of landlord subsistence
34
11angus, A. R., op. cit.; Mangus, A. R., type a"d rah~• of ReHef Received
by Ru,.-al and roui Cases, Octabef" 19311, Research Bulletin F-8, D1Y1S1on
ot Research, Stattstlcs, and Finance, F.E.R.J.., April 24, 11136: Beck,
P. G. and Forster, H. c., op. cit., pp. 31-37; and KcConi1ck, T. c.,
op. cit., Table 2, p. 7'l.
35
Mangus, A. R., the Ru,.-al legro on Relief, feb"'ary 1i35, Research Bulletin
H-3, D1v1s1on ot Research, Stat1st1cs, and Finance, r.E.R.A., OCtober 17,
1935, p. 1.
36
Ma:igus, A. R•• Relief Hi.sto,.-y, Kay to October 1i311, of .hrai and roua
lelisf Cases, Research Bulletin F-9, D11'1s1on ot Research, Btatlattca,
and Finance, F.E.R.A., Aprll 24, 1936.
o,sirt~ed
tivGoog(e
169
RELIEF AND REHABILITATION
artvances. In such a comparison average yearly relief grants
should be considered as well as average monthly relief grant
fil!'11res. Plantation families on relief in 19:34 receive<! an average of less than $27 during the entire year ITable 651. This
amounted to an aver~e monthly grant of S7.70 during the 3•
months they were on relief. Displaced tenant families received
by far the largest amount of relief, their average yearly grant
amounting to almost S61. Renters received the next largest relief grants and other share tenants the lowest, the average
yeat"ly amounts being approximately $32 and S21, respectively.
Cropper and wage hand families received almost the same amounts
of a.c;sistance, averaging S24 and $25, respectively, for the
entire year.
a:
Tab19 65-AV!:RAGE ANNO'L AN; IIONTHLY RELIEF GRANTS
290 Pl,lNTATIOlf FAMILIES,
AND Nl.l.«R
IIONTf5 ON RELIEF, BY TENl.llE STATl.5, 1934
(Cotton Plantation Enumeration)
a:
Tota1 Fa,ni 1 ies
Reporting .\mount
T~nure Status
of Qel ief
4"-ounl of
Relief per
Family 1934
,lverdge Ntnber
of Vonths
on !?el ief
lver3ge Monthly
Relief Gra.nt
l'l:34
Tot•I
290
~6.95
3- 5
u. 70
qerit!'rs
Ot"er shue tl!'nants
CropCM!'rs
52
3'
155
35
31.90
21.09
23.97
24 .94
60. 79
3.9
3.5
6.18
6.03
7.99
6.24
~-33
M1;e hands
0ispl11cll!d tenants
14
3.0
•. 0
7. 3
<Antparison of the average amount of relief receiYed by these
plantation fuilies in 1934 with the average amount of subsistence advances from landlords reveals that relief assistance
has been relatively small. The tenants for wh0111 relief data
are available received an average of approximately S7. 70 per
month f1'0III relief, while tenants being furnished by landlords
received_subsistence advances averaging S12.90 per month.
THE RURAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM
In the spring of 1934 the rural rehabilitation program was
inaugurated under the Federal Emergency Relief Administration
as one step toward a differentiated treatment of the numerous
relief groups and relief problems. 57 Its objective was to remove farm fat11ilies fr0111 relief rolls by advancing credit for
subsistence and fanning operations so that they could again become self-supporting. It was assumed that families on fanns
would be able to produce a 11lajor part of their own food if land,
81 ror a ■ore detailed discussion or tlle rural rebulllt&tlon progru IUlder
tbe r.1.a.A. see #1Mtlly l•IIO~t of~, .•. ,., .. August WS6, pp, 14-N:
&lSO Asch, Berta, ,on ,.uh.s OIi leHe/ IJft4 JdoHUtat,cm, rorUICOlllDg
■onoarapb,
DIY1slon or 8oc1a1 Researcb, W.P.A.
Dig1
zedbyGoogle
170 LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
work stock, equipment, and short tera credit were made aTailable to them. Up to that time, tbe Federal government had \Ot
provirled this type of credit to tenants in the South. 88
As the program was worked out, emphasis was placed primarily
upon subsistence fanning, although in money crop areas commercial fanning on a family basis often was allowed. Formulation
of the details of the program was left largely to the discretion of the individual States, this policy being necessitated
by major regional differences in type of fanning, size of farms,
anrl the tenure status o! farm fa111ilies on Telief. To enable
the large majority o! cases to repay the short term loans for
current operating and subsistence expenses and to pay the yearly installments on capital goods purchased, it was necessary
to provide an opportunity for 11ost clients to make payments
through labor on rehabilitation and E.R.A. work projects.
In the main, the program in 1934 was confined to families
already living on fanns, although some Tillage and town cases
with farming experience were moved to rural areas. As the program ran into its second crop year, its functions began to
broaden beyond rehabilitation of farm families "in place." State
Rehabilitation Corporations of a non-profit and self-liquidating type were formed in most of the States, these agencies receiving grants from the F.E.R.A. and having the rights of private corporations, including the right of buying, selling, and
leasing land, buildings, and capital goods. Debt adjustment
efforts resulted in scaling down debts o! many farm owners.
Plans for the creation of organized fan1 communities, work centers, commodity exchanges, and cooperatives were .!ot'lllulated and
a fewwere set up in 1935. Occasional dormant industrial plants,
quarries, and the like, usually employing part-time fanners,
were resuscitated and seasonal industries were developed in certain localities. Resettlement of fam families then on subaarginal land or of families in stranderl ruralindustrialc011111uniti.es was atte111pted on a small scale.
On June 30, 1935, the entire program was transferred to the
State Rehabilitation Corporations, which in 111ost States Toted
to transfer theiractivities to the Resettlement Administration
through which future funds were to be made aTailable.
This type of program, particularly the phase of rehabilitating fann families "in place", was especially suitable to the
southern cotton area. In effect what it offered for most of
the families, other than farm owners or some few tenants who
were aided in buying farms, was a substitution of govern111ent
credit for landlord credit, where the latter was no longer
available.
38 see chapter V.
Digitized by
Google
RELIEF AND REHABILITATION
171
Credit fr011 the existing govern■ ental agencies could not,
under their rulings, be extended to such poor risks as foflfter
tenants on relief. The reasons why the Rehabilitation Corporations could afford to do this were twofold: (11 the credit extended did not greatly exceed the aaount which would b&Te been
necessary to feed the fa11i17 on the dole; (21 a fani plan wai:;
worked out for tile faily and the edsting plan was supe"ised.
Beginning with a S111al1 nu11ber of clients in the spring of
1934, the rural rehabilitation program expanoed slowlJ during
the first year and more rapidly in 1935. l111111ediatelJ prior to
its transference to the Resettlement Adlllinistration on June 30,
1935, it was ■aking advances to 110re than 3)(),000 cases in 43
States (Appendix Table 65).
Approxi•ately 138,000 cases ill the 7 southeastern cotton
States were under the care of the progr11111 at one tiae or a11other.
There was wide variation in the extent of the pro,raa in the
various States, Louisiana reporting 37,CXJO cases and North and
Sooth Carolina only 8,000 and 7,000, respectivelJ • .Aaong other
factors, three ■ay be mentioned which were partially responsible for the extent of develoi-ent of the pr~raa in a given
State: UI the type of progra111 fonmlated by the State rural
rehabilitation division; (21 the nu■ber of fana relief cases
considered to be capable of rehabilitation; and (3t the availability of crop land and houses in the areas where dispossessed
fal"ftl fuilies were located.
&.!all cot ton fal'!llers were particularly in need of such a
progn111. To the thousands of displaced tenants whose re-entry
into the agricultural economy had been effectively blocked by
the acreage cont rot progru, it offered the only opportunity to
becoae even partially self-supporting. The prog r• answered a
real need in this area and developed relatively rapidly.
In plantation areas with large-scale and highly capitalized
c0111111ercial fanii ng, however, the progru toot root only gradually. On the 646 plantations studied, there was onlJ one rural
rehabilitation client in 1934, although 719 of the 5,033 plantatio" fa111ilies reporting received relief during tile year !Appendix Table 621. Evidently SOllle plantation owners were willing to be subsidized by relief pa1111ents to their tenant and
wage band faailies, but at the s•e ti111e they refused to cooperate in the rural rehabilitation program. Relatively little
idle crop land and few vacant houses, which the prognua called
for rent free or at regular rental terms, were aade available
by planters. With profitable C0111Mercial fat"llling the objective,
and with cotton prices risin~, they had little idle land other
than that which soil conse"ation policy required to go fallow.
Purther110re, if a resident f•ily on a plantation was capable
of fa!"llling, the planter undoubtedly preferred to ■ate his own
farming agreeaent with the tenant rather than work through a
Digitized by
Google
172
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
government agency. If he could shift the burden of furnishing
the tenant to the relief administration, he was so much to the
good. In plantation areas the Rehabilitation Corporation had
to seek available land and houses among small farm owners or on
plantations in the hands of land banks or mortgage companies.
Goods to the amount of almost 50 million dollars were issued
to rehabilitation clients during the 15 months the program was
in operation under the F.E.R.A. (Appendix Table 651. Of this
amount 29 percent was for subsistence goods, such as food, clothing, and other items of living, ano the balance for farm supplies and capital goods, including seed, fertilizer, household
and farming equipment, and work stock. In addition, obligations
totaling 11 million dollars were incurred for purchases of materials, particularly for the construction of family dwellings
for clients, and for administrative expenses. 39
In the southeastern cotton St ates, the amount of all goods
issued per case, when figured for the total number of clients
ever on the program, was much higher than that for tile whole
country, the average being $166 as compared with $124. 40 This
difference is more noticeable for subsistence than for rehabilitation goods, and probably is due to the fact that clients remained on the program longer in tile South than iu other parts
of the country.
The amount of goods issued per case vaned greatly from State
to State in this area, according to the type of program formulr.ted and the number of cases accepted for loans. Louisiana
and Alabama, with per case averages of $87 and $105, respectively, for the value of all goods issued, had the smallest loans
per case and the largest number of cases assisted. In these
t,,,.o States the program 1.-as mainly of a subsistence type with
relatively few loans for capital goods. On the other hand,
Georgia and South Carolina each made capital goods loans averaging more than $220 per case.
Loans to clients receiving advances in June 1935 in the F,astern Cotton Belt, exclusive of non-cotton areas, averaged $175
for all gooos issued since the date of their enrollment (Table
661. The average is higher than the $166 for all cases ever
on the program in the seven States considered as a whole I Appendix Table 651. This may be explained by the fact that the cases
included in the Eastern Cotton Area mu::;t have received advances
39 Honthly Report ot the F.E.R.A,, August 1935, p. 20.
• 0 rn cOnslderlng these r1gures 1 t should be k.ept ln miod tnat many cases
were on the program ror a snort perloa or Lirut! W1d received only small
loans, w1111e others on tbe program durin 6 the growing season or the greater part or 2 crop years received relatively large advances. .Uso, many
ram111es were accepted ror rehab1l1tat1on wnen only subsistence advances
were needed Wblle others required larg~ capital outlays to enabletbem to
conduct rarmtng operations eruciently. For these reasons tbe spread
trom the average ls large.
D1·1•zedbyGoogle
RELIEF AND REHABI LITATION
173
in June 1935 and therefore may have been on the program dur i ng
.110st of the growing season of 2 crop yea rs, whil e among a 11
cases ever on the program there is more like li hood th at some
were under care for only a few months or on l y i n 1934 . Als o
Table 66-AVERAGE AIIQJNT Of 00005 ISSIE> SIIIC£ DUE OF ENAOLULNT TO CAS£, R£C£1v1 , r.
IUML A£HA81LITATION Ul\lANC[S IN JUNE 1935 IN TltE EASTERN
COTTON AREA. 11T TTl'E Of OOOOS 00 8Y COUR
132 ~ • • CountiesJ
Advances for Subsi:!ttenc e Goods
l dvarces f o r Ctt Q1 t J I
Total
- • t of
Casea
"-1,r... nted
All
pe1 Case
Percent of
-unl
Pe r cen t o f
All Cases
per :'.::ase
All Ca:; es
A.; u n i
pt!r Ca se
Total
6,288
S175
91!. 2
5811
'l0.6
S119
lltiite
•.028
205
99.2
74
91.5
145
Negro
2,2!0
IU
9&.6
60
R9.0
73
Color
Ad•~•
[1()()(1 ~
it is probable that cases in the co111111ercial fan11ing cotton are a
re qui red larger advances t ban those in subsistence farming areas .
While 98 percent of the cases received subsistence advances ,
only 91 percent received loans for rehabilitation or capital
goods (Table 661.
Negro-white differences in the amount of
goods issued followed those usually found for size of relie f
TaDla 67--USJAL AII0 CURREIIT OCCU,,.TION° OF HEADS Of IUIAl CASES REC£1YING
RELi EF NIIJ UNDER CARE Of llJRAl ROWII LITATION PROGR.111,
IN THE WTEfiN COTTON AREA. JIJIE 1935
(32 5-le Count iesJ
Relief
Occupation
Total:
..,_,
Percanl
eu..
Rehao I I i t a l I on Ca::.e s
Usual
Current
Usual
Curr ent
11.356
6,356
100.0
6,170
100.0
92,2
82.1
18.7
6, 170
100 . 0
36.6
56 . 5
16.0
100.0
57.8
3'. 2
7. 2
10.2
16. 8
Fa111 l1i1»rers
23.11
2S.3
20. 7
6.5
7. 7
11.5
4.6
~ricultur•
38.0
7.2
•.i!
67.5
Agricultwre
Fara operators
0-..rs
T-u
Croppers
No usual occupation or
cur'911tly un-loyed
26.8
10.1
7.8
94. 7
92. 9
20.,
1. 8
0. 3
5. 0
••••I occ.,.ti• i • . ., . _ . N tH occ.,.1,o,1 •• • l c11 I N ~ • • • ..,...,.._., a.r 111111 IM lut II rea n . o r rent
•c-,.1 1• It IM .... al •'ell Ille "•4 M4 , .......... far at 1••• OM
r•rv.r1 1 •'"' Ju • • ,,. 1,, 1 •
... rce 1 .. ,.,,., •' C■ r""I c•a .. n 1111 1111• ••ral hli•f ,.,_1•11•"• llw h iOfl or S.1al ..... rc,i. • · ' •• •
'•11 ...., ........
benefits among rural families in the South, the average of $122
in all goods for Negro cases being decidedly lower than that
of S205 for whites. The difference was much greater for capital
goods than for subsistence advances. Likewise a somewhat smaller proportion of Negro than white cases received subsistence
goods and the same was true for capital goods. Evidently fewe r
Negro cases received both types of goods than did whites.
Digt1zeJ!JyGoogle
174 LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
To understand clearly the nature of the rural rehabilitation
program in the Eastern Cotton Belt and to knOIII' hOlt it was applied, it is necessary to note what types of families were accepted for rehabilitation. An analysis of the usual occupation
of relief and rehabilitation cases in June 1935 reveals that,
as would be expected from the nature of the program, only 8 percent of the rehabilitation clients had usually been engaged in
non-agricultural industry during the past 10 years, whereas 38
percent of those remaining on relief rolls were non-agricultural
cases (Table 67). Likewise only a small proportion of the rehabilitation group represented farm laborers. More than fourfifthsof the rehabilitation cases in this area came fro• among
the farm operators. RoughlT speaking, of every nine of these
farm operator cases two were fara owners, three were croppers,
and tour were other tenants. Thus, those farm families who were
presumably in a better financial situation (owners, share tenants, and renters) were 110re often taken on the rehabilitation
program than were croppers and farm laborers.
Study of current tenure status of relief and rehabilitation
cases indicates that the rehabilitation program at least temporarily benefited families taken under its care (Table 67).
&!even percent 110re of the rehabilitation cases were currently
in the farm operator group than were usually in that group. The
number of tara owners bad increased slightly and evidently a
large number ot croppers and laborers had shifted up the agricultural ladder. While tke proportion usually engaged as croppers I 27 percent) decreased to 16 percent currently so eaployed,
and laborers fro■ 10 percent to 2 percent, the proportion a1110ng
other tenants increased froa the usual occupation ratio of 37
percent to a current figure of 57 percent.
The rural rehabilitation progrant in the Eastern Cotton Belt
varied considerably with the tenure status of the clients. By
providing credit facilities, the program sought to enable fara
owners to carry on farming operations efficiently, in some instances preventing mortgage foreclosures.
Debt adjustments
saved other owners from losing their farms. Some few tenants
were enabled to make a down payment on a place and thus enter
the farm ownership group. The program resulted in many clients
growing more of their own food than formerly.
In general, the future out look of the cotton tenant or laborer family on rural rehabilitation in some ways was not greatly unlike that of fuilies under the ·often criticized sharecropper syste11. Tenure arrangements tor a longer period than
l year were seldom made, and farming practices were supervised.
Clients received subsistence advances of about the sa111e amount
as landlords usually provided, and short term credit for fertilizer, seed, feed for work stock, and like operating expenses.
Furthermore, a share of the crop or a specified amount of cash
Digitized by
Google
RELIEF AND RERARILITATION
175
rent was usually paid for the use of the land either directly
to the owner or to the Rehabilitation Corporation which in turn
was renting from the owner.
The pro~ram differed from the usual operation of the tenant
system in that there were no high interest rates and as a rule
work !.tock and eqnipment were sold to the client with 3 to
5 years al lower:! for payment. Thus, the former wage hanr:I or
cropper perhaps had a somewhat better opportunity to improve his
econol'!ic si tnat1on under this program than under the tenant system. Furthermore, diversification of crop!. was not only possiblebut oblil!'atory under rehabilitation regulations in southern
States. The government, agsuming the re;:;ponsibili ties of the
landlord, was in a position to dictate what should be planted
by rehabilitation clients. Trainer! home economists were employed
under the rehabilitation program to aid housewives with homemaking and family problems. Several years are required before
the success or failure of such a program can be judged, but it
appears evident to one familiar with its operation that the restorative agpects of the prol!'ram were undoubtedly preferable to
a continuation of relief with its merely palliative character.
In planning a long time rehabi Htation pr0f?ra111, the important ractor to be considered is the type and capability of the
families to be dealt with. Data on rehabilitation prospects
amon,r farm families on relief in the Southeast are scattered
and should not be relie<i upon to too large an extent. A study
of approximately 30,000 relief cases applying for rehabili tation in Alabama in 1934 revealed that 54 percent were accepted
as capable of managing capital goods.'11 Thirty-five percent
more were accepted to be advanced chiefly subsistence goods,
and 11 percent were disapproved. The proportion of Negroes accepted as capable of managing capital goods was slightly larger
than that of whites. Also, fewer Negro than white ca.ses were
subsequently cancelled.
A similar study of more than 20,000 cases in Arkansas in 1935
indicate<! that a larger proportion of the applicants, 77 percent,
were accepte<I as capable of managing capital goods. 42 Of these
one in every four wa.5 classified as a "best risk." Fourteen
percent were accepted to receive subsistence loans only, while
41
The study was dlre.cted by Harold Rottsouer, then r.1.R.A. State SUperTtsor or Rural Research ln Alabua, and later by John R. KcClure, W.P.A.
Teaporar, State SuperTtaor or Rural Research. 110 aatertal as yet bas
been published froa tbls study. An&11sta was aade or all appltcattons
tor rebabUitatton 1n Alabua in 11134.. Claastrtcatton or a raa111 bad
been deteratned preTlous11 bf rellef orrtclals and tbe local county rebabllltatlon c0111alttee, after a conslderatlon or the coaposltlon or the
Cllent•s household and blS past blstor,, together wltb Tarlous optnlons
concern tug b la.
42.rbts study was directed bf C. o. Brannen, W.P.A. State SllJ>erYtsor or Rural
Research ln Arkansas. Claasltlcattm or ru111es was deteralned 1n the
aae way as in Alabaaa.
C1g1tzed by
Google
176
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
nine percent were disapproved. Negroes were decidedly underrepresented on rehabilitation rolls, the Negro ratio in the
rural relief population being much higher than that among families on rural reh,t.bi li tation. I-'urthermore, fewer Negro than
white applicants were accepted as capable of managing capital
goods.
The capability of rural relief f.imi1ies for rehabilitation 43
was analyzed in a study made in 11 sample counties in North
Carolina in 1934. It was found that because of unemployability
47 percent were unable to be self-supporting as farmers and an
additional 5 percent had had insufficient farming experience.
The remaining 48 percent appeared capable of rural rehabili tat ion from the point of view of available labor in the family,
health, and farming experience. It is this latter group which
corresponds fairly closely to the rehabi 1 i tat ion applicants
studied in Alabama and Arkansas. Of the 1,854 such cases included in the North Carolina sample, 28 percent were rated as
good prospects and 43 percent as fair prospects. There is some
doubt a, to how many of the fair prospects could be successful
in a rehabilitation scheme even with fairly close supervision,
but it is believed that most of the relief families in these
first two groups, representing almost three-fourths of the employables with farming experience, were capable of managing
capital goods. The remaining 29 percent were rated as bad risks.
Of the tenants and laborers, only 140, or 11 percent, were deemed
cap,ible of eventually becoming successful fann owners if given
an opportunity. It is significant that capability of families
was rated lowest in cotton and tobacco counties with high tenancy rates.
Alth0ugh the results of these various State studies of the
possibilities of rural rehabilitation are not directly comparabl~, certain broad generali:rntions may be made from them. It
is evident that the principle of rural rehabilitation cannot
be dismissed as impractical due to lack of capability among
rural relief families to be dealt with in the South. On the
other hand, the idea that it is possible to enable every ablebodied farm family on relief to own and successfully operate
"a mule and 20 acres" is equally unrealistic. Under the rural
rehabilitation program of 1934-1935 with its supervisory facilities, it appears certain that more than one-half of the
able-bodied· farm families on relief in the southeastern States
" 3 aiackwell, Gorden W., Rural Relief fa•ilies in10f'"th Carolina, North Car-:,Una Emergency Reller Aelmln1strat1on, Raleigh, North carol1na, 1935
(mimeographed). Rating or ram111es was based on a consideration or raaUy
com1>0s1t1on, rarmlng history, anel 01>1n1ons or landlords or employers,
social service workers, work proJect foremen, and E.R.A. rar11 and garden
supervisors. f'lgures have been rev1see1 slightly since issuance or the
report.
Dig tized by
Google
■
RELIEF AND REHABILITATION
177
were capable of participating to the extent of attaining owner-
ship of stock and equipment.
When one considers the possibilities of replacing the firmly entrenched tenant system with a system of small owners, the
outlook is probably brighter among tenants wno have not been
relegil.ted to relief status, as it is to be expected that in
general the most capable farm tenants have continued to be selfsupporting. Tenants with past relief status, however, make up
only a minor segment, perhaps a fourth or a third, of the total
tenant population in the Eastern Cotton Belt. Among those who
have managed to remain independent of Federal relief, opportunities for increasing farm ownership with the aid o1 the government ma, be more encouraging.
o,,ir zed by
Google
Dig.zed by
Google
-
Chapter XI
CONSTRUCTIVE MEASURES
The policy of the South and of the Nation toward the tenant
system and cotton economy was, up to 1932, one of latssez fatre
with occasional mild efforts to promote diversification of crops
or to provide palliatives such as cooperative marketing and the
extension of government credit to those whose security was adequate. The results of this policy are apparent enough in the
preceding chapters. First the slave plantation, then the tenant plantation, were based on an exploitative culture of a money
crop with ignorant labor working under a paternalistic system,
producing a raw material and exchanging it for finished products
unnfactured elsewhere. The process bas been marked by increasing soil exhaustion, soil erosion, ruinous credit conditions,
and lllOUnting tenancy.
Those who wonld abandon the latssez fatre policy in favor of
pr011otion of constructive measures will, of necessity, have to
face certain basic realities of the social and economic organization of the South and shape their plans accordingly. Otherwise they can expect conflict of wishful thinking with- stubborn
facts.
The effectiveness of specific constructive programs is conditioned by the quantity and qnality of the population, the
inter-regional and international implications of cotton economy,
the type of farm organization to be promoted, and the time element necessary in effecting social change.
BA.SIC REALITIBS
The Paople
The first realities are those which concern the number and
capacity of the people of the Southeast. The Cotton Belt h11s
for ienerations produced more people than were needed to cultiYate the cash crop. These people reared on cotton farms found
outlet for their productiYe capacity either in urban industry
or elsewhere in the qrarian system of the Nation. A similarly larie younger ieneration is now aaturing and entering the
labor urtet. Mechanized, coanercial f&l'llling provides no certain future for these teeming thousands of maturing youth.
In his suaary of t be population outlook of the Southeast,
179
Dig ii Zed by
Goog [e
180
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
Vance expresses the situation as follows:
••• the region's problem of low standards can, in
the long run, be met only by the adjustment of Ill
a decreasing rate of population growth to 121 an
increasing utilization of regional resources with
(31 redistribution of part of the population. The
foregoing analysis indicates doubt as to whether
any one of these three factors is at present operating to the benefitofthe area. Furthermore, any
change in the birthrate of the population or any
improvement in the economic life of the South is
bound to take place very slowly. Migration remains
the area's sole i111111ediate recourse to soften the
blow of lost markets or lift it from stabilized
poverty in case of a return of pre-depression conditions. Even if a program of regional reconstruct ion larger than any yet contemplated could be carried swiftly and effectively to conclusion, the nation and the region should plan for migration. If
world markets are lost, it will be desirable, if
not absolutely necessary, that six or seven million
persons should migrate from the Southeast .•••
Certainly with seven millions wholly or partially
removed from the consumers' market and pressing on
the national labor market it is hardly reasonable
to envisage industrial recovery. The maximum figure, then, does not measure migration so much as
the amount of regional povertythatmight be expected to prevail. The point can easily be made that
these figures can be put to their most realistic
use as an estimate of the relief burden likely to
fall upon the nation should the South lose the whole
export cotton market. 1
While Vance has diagnosed the case with accuracy, the facts
do not fully agree with the remedy he suggests (wholesale migration, or wholesale relief I, for there is no assurance from
the agricultural outlook, as described in other sections of
Goodrich's analysis, that these six or seven million people
could be absorbed into any better situation outside the South. 2
If they remain where they are, they at least have the advantages
1
ooodrlcb, Carter, and Others, Kigration an4 lc0110Slc O~t,ortvnlt,, Pblladelphla: UnlYeraltJ or Pennsylvania Presa, 1g3«1, pp. 182-183.
2Id•••
Digtized:iyGoogle
CONSTRUCTIVE MEASURES
181
of a salubrious climate where long growing seasons and abundllnt
rainfall make life somewhat easier than in harsher climates. Nor
do the data in this study support the theory that to remain and
endeavor to work out ll different agricultural economy from the
one at present practiced would necessarily mean greater poverty
than would be the case if the migrants join the millions who
exist on the margin of the industrial labor market.
Not only must the future of the South be molded about a population policy which will fit the essential trends in numbers but
it must also be adapted to the capacity of the people.
This means, first, that constructive effort must recognize the
inter-racial character of the southeastern population and the pecul iar traditional relationships between the races. This, however,
is of decreasing import,i.nce as with the increase of white tenancy it becomes more and more a class rather than a race prob le■.
The comparative poverty of educational opportunity, especially for Negroes, provides an index of the lack of deYelop111ent of native capacities. ·The systetll of strict 1111.n11.2e11ent
of tenant operations and supervision of tenant expenditures
further saps initiativeanddeadens the sense of self-reliance.
Wide differences exist in the educational attainment of far11ers of the South and tanners of other sections. A still greater
disparity is evident between the rural and the urban sections
of the country. This disparity is due in part to the inferior
school facilities and iimited grade attainment of rural pupils
but also in part to the fact that rural schools are to a great
extent educating young people for the city. Such studies as
have been 111ade of the quality of migration indicate that the
grade attainment of those moving from the fans is higher than
that of those remaining. To produce &a educated rural population in the future, therefore,would require that more of tke
rural pupils remain on the farm after finishing school.
This situation poilts to the need for iatensified efforts
for adult education or the training of fanners on the job and
supervision of farming operations. The training and supervision
needed is of the type given in the past by farm and home demonstration agents and rehabilitation supervisors to owner operators
and independent tenants. Increase in the efficiency of production, introduction of specialty crops, and improved practices
.of animal husbandry have been principal objectives of these programs. Owing to the organization of the plantation system, however, it bas been difficult for extension agents to reach tenants directly. Land use, crop practices, and animal breeding are
planned and managed by the landlord. Any modification of these
plans and practices is sdbject to his rulings. A cooperative
landlord may, therefore, allow his tenants to receive extension
instruction, while one who is not interested will block any con-,
structive prograa proposed.
182
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
The success or failure of all of the constructive measures
is more or less dependent on the intelligence and information
of the people involved. It may be said, therefore, that the
keystone of any program of southern agrarian reconstruction
must be a program of mass education.
To suggest that the South might e~ert itself more in the direction of education is pertinent but somewhat in the nature of
a recommendation that the region lift itself by its own bootstraps. In proportion to its wealth base the South is spending
as much for education as any other section. However, the wealth
base is relatively so small that the resulting per capita expenditures are far below those in other sections.
This situation points to the need for a Federal program of
grants-in-,aid for the equalization of educational opportunity,
justified by the fact that the surplus wealth of the Southeast
is concentrated in other sections and the further fact that
such a large proportion of youth educated in the rural areas
make their life contribution in industrial cities.
Inter-regional and International Relationships
A realistic program will also consider the fact that one of
the basic features of the international trade of the United
States has been the exchange of raw cotton and tobacco for the
finished products of other sections and of other nations. The
whole freight rate structure of the region is based on that hypothesis and tends to crystallize the situation. The reduction
of cotton exports drastically alters the trade balance, but it
is becoming increasingly apparent that if'cotton is to hold an
important position in the export trade of the United States,
the cotton producers of the Southea.o;t must compete with the
farmers of South Africa, India, South America, Manchuria, and
other potential cotton producing areas having low standards of
living. From this it follows that the more cotton that is produced in other areas, the more the farmers of the Southeast
must continue to produce in competition with families that have
a low standard of living, thereby depressing the southern standard unless cotton is merely an incidental portion of farm income
instead of the dominant factor which it now is. Thus, southeastern economy is dependent on the balance among regions and
among nations, and changes in the present system must be weighed
against resulting shifts in inter-regional and international
relationships.
large Ts. Small Scale Operations
It should be pointed out that all the constructive measures
discussed in the following section are predicated on a trend
Dig 112ed y
Goos IC
CONSTRUCTIVE MEASURES
183
toward small fanns cultivated by independent operators. However, there is a possibility that under a Zatssez fatre policy
anrl with increasing expansion of commercial fanning and mechanization, a trend toward large scale farminr, may prevail. One
school of thought visualizes increasing concentration of acreag-e
into large landholding-s operated by increasingly mechanized
processes, the other, an increasing subdivision o1 land into
family-sized farms on which money crops provide a minimum proportion of the income and subsistence crops balance the family
budget. These conflicting philosophies are summed up in Southern
Regions as follows:
There were as usual contradictory pictures of the
future of agriculture. One was a picture of the
new agricnl tu re as predominately machine farming,
on large fanns owned by commercial concerns with
ever increasing use of inventions and the employment of fewer men. There "'°uld bet he cot ton picker
which would do the work of forty Negroes or the
multiple purpose corn harrow or threshing machine
which might do the work of a hundred men. It was
pointed out that, already by 1930, over half of all
farms had automobiles, about 15 percent trucks, besides a great many other types of mechanical farm
equipment. On the other hand, the picture was presented, following actual trends, to show that whenever the big farms owned by banks and insurance
companies were sold, the tendency was invariably to
break them up into smaller units. The statistics
showed a regular decrease in the size of farms.
Likewise, during the depression years the use of
machine cultivation had decreased tremendously.
The great decrease in exports threatened to make
commercial farming unprofi tab] e, while there seemed
to be a definite trend toward self-sufficing faming, with a very large increase of the balanced
live-at-home operations .... 8
It is not outside the realm of possibility that the two trends
may develop simultaneously with larger and more mechanized farms
for the production of money crops, interspersed with increasing
numbers of family-sized farms which are operated primarily to
produce a living for a family. These smaller farms must include small acreages of money crops to pay for taxes, clot hi ni,,
and services, but in a region of as varied potentiality as the
3
0dua, Ronrd
427.
I).
w.,
Chapel HUl:
Un1vera1t:V or North Carolina
Press, 1Q38,
184
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
South they c:tn 1tlso produce the major portion of the family
food requirements. Neither of these systems is highly efficient under a regime of share tenancy. Large-scale mechanized
f'lrming is most productive when managed by a central control
l\nd operated by Wl\ge laborers. Sml\ll-sca.le family fanning is
more efficient wlien conducted by owner operl\tors or operl\tors
who at lel\st own their work stock and finance themselves, provided they /\re capable farmers. Some of. the advantages of
large-scale orieration m;:i.y be secured by sm1ttl farmers through
closer cooperation.
The c0ncentration of commercial fanning on large mechanized
acreages will mel\n the reduction of manpower required per acre
and also of the total manpower employed on farms, unless the
decrease in costs extends the market so that a far greater supply of cottonml\ybe soldat reducedprices, an eventualtty which
is not likely unless important new uses for cotton are developed. It will enhance the profit-making capacity of the few entrepreneurs, and will limit the workers to a smallcash income which
must be expended for commodities produced elsewhere. Diversific'ltion of agriculture is obviously not so profitable on largescale commerci;:i.l farms since the profits to the operator of
such enterprises come from sales of commercial crops and the
oper;:i.tor has no interest in the subsistence crops produced by
the l;:i.borers ;:i.nd ten'lnts. The f;:i.mily-sized farm and the parttime farm, on the other h/\nd, discard the economies of largesc1t.le buying and m/\nagement, and substitute the free services
of family l/\bor for the efficiency of mechanical cul ti vat ion
and hi\rvesting.
Social Inertia
The persistence of the plantation as a socio-economic institution surviving the Ci vi 1 W:ir :ind subsequent depress ions, ramifying in its influence into :ill phases of southern rural life,
indicates thi!.t the phntl\tion has evolved to fit a definite
socio-economic condition and thllt it meets the situation better
than anything else which can be produced by the unaided efforts
of the groups involved. It also indicates the formation of a
deeply i ngraioed set of customs and relationships which will be
difficult to ch:inge and impossible to revolutionize suddenly.
In fa.ct, a search for par:illels in European agrarian reform indicates that nations such as Ireland and Denmarr, which hl\ve accomplished conspicuous tenant reforms, have required several
generations to l\ttain their goal.
SPECIFIC PROGRAMS
Me-'lsures for relief, rehabilitation, and the fundamental
reconstruction of southern agriculture -'ire matters tor Federlll-
Digitzed by
Google
CONSTRUCTIVE MEASURES
185
State cooperation, and they have been strongly st imnlated by
the appropriation of Federal funds. Since it is apparent that
these are long time rat her t ban temporary problems, eventual
alleviation of some of the conditions set out in this report
will be expedited by a continuation of Federal assistance.
In appraising the effect of actual constructive legislation
or organization, it is often difficult to separate the faults
or virtues of an objective from the excellencies or flaws of
the administrative measures designed to attain that objective.
Inasmuch as appraisal of administrative procedures is not a
function of this chapter, only' the objectives are discussed.
State Legislation
Hore comprehensive State legislation for the protect ion of
the tenant is possible but has never been vigorously sponsored
by southern legislatures. The principal proposals which have
been made in this field are:
a.
Repeal of the laws now on the books of certain States which
make it a misdemeanor to quit a contract while in debt.
This provision has, in the past more frequently than in the
present, led to the use of criminal procedure to hold tenants
and a confusion as to the juril;ldiction of the Federal antipeonage laws.
b.
Requirement of a written contract with power to call for an
accounting on the performance of the agreement before the
courts. Tbe power to demand an accounting now exists, but
without an aroused public opinion the tenant and the landlord are not equal before the law.
c.
Contracts providing the reimbursement of the tenant for
permanent improvements of the land or buildings made with
bis labor and not exhausted before the time of his moving
fr0111 the holding. Such contracts are necessary if full benefits of programs of soil conservation and permanent improvement of property are to be reaped.
Subaarginal Land Retireiaent Prograas
The shifting of population from submarginal lands to more
productive lands affects both owner occupants and tenant occupants. However, the owner occupant receives the purchase price
of the property and can use his equity to secure a new farm.
Unless the tenant is aided toward resettlement in a new location,
he is not helped by the procedure.
From the viewpoint of cash crop production control the retirement of submarginal lands in favor of more fertile acres is
a two-edged sword. If the more productive acreages are used
for cash crops in the same proport.ion as were the submarginal
Dig tized by
Google
186
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON
PLAt,;TATION
lands, this will lead to a larger production per acre and to an
extent offset the effects of acreage reduction. There is the
aJded di leinma of selecting the method for retiring submarginal
lanris and determining the most desirable use for the acreage
retired from agriculture.
Three methoris of promoting the retirement of submarginal
lands have been proposed:
a.
Purchase by the Federal government and transfer from agricultural use to other uses, such as forestry, public grazing,
pame preserves, and recreation. The acquisition of all
lands which have been j uriged suhmarginal would, however,
prove prohibitive in cost and would again build up a vast
p uhl ic domain.
b. · A legal zoning process in rural areas which would operate
sir111hrlr to restrictive zoning in cities. This is a process
which would have to he carried out State by State and county
by county and would encounter many legislative and constittJtional snags.
c.
A zoning process without legal sanctions which would designate lands unfit forcomrnercial agriculture and by a process
of education guide settlers away from these and toward other
areas. Such a movement would be supplemented by such measures as the withdrawal of public services from the proscribed areas, the curtailment of roan extension and repairs,
the abandonment of schools, and encouragemen"t for movement
to other sections. This process would be subject tJ the
1Jneven progress characteristic of p rograrns dependent upon
local initiative.
Soil Conservation
More fundamental in the long run are the programs of soil
conservation and soil improvement which will restore theproductivity of lands now near the margin of profitable use in agriculture. Farmers whose land now provides a precarious existence
can be encouraged to put their soil in such condition that it
will be more productive. The tenant system as, it exists in the
South, however, is inimical to soil conservation policies. The
tenant system is huilt around the cotton-corn economy and both
of these crops are clean-cultivated row crops which allow the
maximum amount of ero3ion.
Cover crops are usually not cash crops and their profitable use is dependent upon feeding to livestock. Livestock
product ion is difficult, hut not impossible, to adapt to a share
tenant sys tern.
Cig1
zedbyGoogle
187
CONSTRUCTIVE MEASURES
»!versification or Crops
A program of crop diversification has long been urged by the
press and farmers' organizations as a panacea for the ills of
the South. On this point again the findings of this study are
definitive. The controlling factor on plantations is that the
landlord's income is accumulated from his shares of the incomes
of a numher of teMnts and while it may he of advantage to the
tenants to produce crops for home use, it is not of so great
advantage to the landlord as the production of a cash crop which
is readily marketahle.
Production Control
The financial benefits of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration programwere discussed in chapter VI. The income analysis, however, makes evident the fact that the benefits of price
increase, attributed to a number of factors of which production
control was one, far outweighed the benefit from acreage reduct ion payments. These payments averaged $8.00 per cropper as
against an increase of $30.00 per bale in the price of each bale
of cotton produced (from 6 cents per pound in 1g32 to 12 cents
in 1935-19361.
The indirect benefits of the adjustment program, if followed
through, might be of more permanent value than the direct financial benefits. These indirect benefits come from the pressure
toward diversification under the money crop reduction program.
With roughly 40 percent of the money crop acreage retired under
the A.A.A. program there was a considerable urge to use this
land for other purposes. On many farms, land retired from cotton
merely lay idle or was sketchily cultivated in food and forage
crops. However, idle land under the climatic conditions of the
South quickly produces grass, and without excessive expenditure
becomes excellent pasture. The increases in past11re shown in
the 1935 Census over 1930 indicate this trend. This, co1Jpled
with the acquisition of thousands of cattle from the drought
area of 1934, gave strong impetus to the development of animal
husbandry in the So11theast.
Following the abandonment of the A.A.A. program, the inauguration of soil conservation benefits gave ~ositive stim1Jlus to
the use of idle acres for food and forage crops. Under this
program, the payment of benefits on food crops produced by the
tenant should prove especially effective in raising the standard
of living of the tenants. One of the most significant findings of this study is the relationship between increase in tenant income and increase in home use production. Furthermore,
this is stable income, not subject to price fluctuations or
marketing difficulties. The rapidly increasing farm population
C1g1• zed by
Google
188
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
of the South emphasizes the difficultyofcontrolled production
in an area of increasing labor supply. Production policies,
if they are not to depress the existing standard of living, must
be adjusted to an expanding population. Thus soil conservation,
diversification, and production control are inextricably interwoven and their success is mutually dependent. All these are
hampered by the present tenant system with its objective of producing cash income.
Credit Refon1
Federal Land Banks, CooperatiYe Credit Associations, and feed
and seed loans have all exerted an influence toward improvement
of the existing credit sys tea by aiding the borrower who had
ample security. They have, however, reached the tenant only
indirectly sincehissecurity is not of the commercial type except where he owns animals subject to a chattel mortgage. The
type of credit described later in the section on rehabilitation
is more adapted to tenant conditions.
Again, agricultural reconstruction, as embodied in the programs of diversification, soil conservation, and crop control,
is impeded by a credit system based on a cash crop as security.
Direct Relief
Relief pa,yments were made to as many as half a million families in the Eastern Cotton States at one time or another and
the amount disbursed totalled ■ illions of dollars, These payments alleviated suffering on a broad scale. Such a program
was necessary as a palliative for distress but it contributed
little to remedy underlying ills. It is significant that work
relief was developed and production goods distributed early in
the program.
Work Relief
The field work on this study had been completed before the
inauguration of the Works Progrc11. Therefore, the direct i11pact
of this program on the plantation was not the object of firsthand observation. Certain facts can, however, be pointed out:
a.
A work program is not well adapted to conserving agricultural
assets unless it is concentrated in off-seasons, or unless
members of tam families other than the operators are available for employment. However, because of effort to operate
on submarginal lands, because of large families, or because
of natural disaster such as drought or flood, many farm
families need cash when the loan of such cash would be
DigtizedbyGoogle
CONSTRUCTIVE MEASURES
189
economic1tlly unsound. Every effort should be milde to provide this ush through irants and iillow the fiirmer to reMilin on his hrm and to preserve his 1tgricul tur1tl 1tssets.
b.
This points to the consideration that in many insunces direct relief, such ils the Resettlement grants, is most suited
to the needs of the f1tnner. Though perh1tps less c1tlculated
to preserve his self respect, such grants, nevertheless,
lewe him tree to devote his full time to recouping his f1trm
1tssets.
c.
Work
projects which tend to driiw fiirmers
vill1tges should be minimized.
into towns and
Rural Rehabilitation
The substitution of lol\fts for the purchase of animllls and
implements, coupled with 1tdvice on farm procedures, for direct
relief payments marked a distinct advance in the readjustment
of dislocated filrm families to the land. This program, in effect, adv1tnced the former displaced cropper to the renter status
inasmuch llS 1tnim1tls 1tnd implements were supplied and a rental
in kind collected. The first real advance of the tenant above
the l:ibor-cropper status comes when he acquires his own animals
and implements 1tnd consequently receives i\ larger share of the
llnnuiil production.
The ·reh1tbilitation program also constitutes 1t m1tjor attack
on the vicious credit system which is a cornerstone of the old
ten1tnt-l1tndlord-merchant system of the Cotton Belt. Extension
of easier credit w1ts possible under the rehabilitation program
because Ill the risks were spread over thousands of clients,
121 a farm plll.n was worked out to fit the !llmily composition
and land av1tilable, and 131 supervision by trained personnel
was provided.
Given a period of years, such a program h1ts a !air chance of
lldv1tncing m1tny tenants to the sutus of renters of !ami ly-sized
farms and thus aiding them to take the first step tow1trd ownership. Inasmuch as the program is practically self-liquidating,
the money can be used, as the loans are rep;i.id, to absorb other
families into the program and extend its benefits.
Promotion of Lando•nership
•
The constructive me1tsures discussed up to this point relate
efforts to improve conditions within, or to modify slightly,
the existing ten~nt system.
L1tndownership promotion proposals involve three other basic
Principles:
ti)
Digitized by
Google
190
LANDLORD ANU TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
a.
Making available to the tenant small family-sized tracts of
~ood land. Usually the best commercial crop land is concentrated in the larger holdings which, when sold, are kept
in as large tracts as possible and not cut up into familysized farms.
New land brought into cultivation through
clearing and stumping, irrigation or drainage, also usually
must be developed in large tracts for economy, and it is
beyond the means of the small farmer to carry on such operations unaided.
b.
Provision of long-time credit on easy terms. The usual period of 3 or 6 years for repayment of mortgages is too short
a time!orthe prospective purchaser to acquirefullequity,
especially under the unstable conditions faced by the cotton farmer.
The small cash incomes produced on family-sized cotton farming units emphasize the need of keeping initial costs of
these tracts low. Even a 40-year amortization of a £4,000
farm would require payments of $100 per year which would
constitute a heavy drain on a cash income such as the 1934
tenant average of about $200.
c.
Provision of supervision in the nature of adult education
which wi 11 not only give the farmer the benefit of improved
agricultt1ri\l practices hut will train him in the habits
necessary for successful management of his own enterprise.
A program of this kind proposed by the Bankhead-Jones Bill'
is particularly adapted to the long-time reform of agrarian
life.in regions of heavy tenant ratios.
The land buying program has been treated separately from the
other measures discussed in this section, not because there is
conflict between them but because it involves a separate set of
mechanisms and objectives. The problems of tenancy in the United States are so far-reaching in significance, and so large in
volume, that measures to improve the condition of those remaining within the system should proceed simultaneously with efforts
to help the most able tenants to escape from the system.
With a hundred million dollars wholly devoted to supplying
$4,000 units, only 25,000 families could be supplied. This is
an insignificant proportion of the total tenants in the country.
It is evident, therefore, that the contention in the beginning
of this section, that the process will of necessity be slow,
should be repeated. Also, programs of protection and rehabil-
•u.
3. 7lltlr. Congress,
Ho■e
1st Session,
Corporation, etc.,•
s.
House, •An Act to Create the Faraers•
2367, June 26, 1935.
Dig t1zed oy
Google
•
CONSTRUCTIVE MEASURES
191
itation should proceed in conjunction with programs of ownership promotion. To promote ownership without alleviating the
condition of the mass of tenants would mean working with the
upper clllss only. To endeavor merely to improve and palliate
the present tenant system would be like patching a worn-out
leaky vessel. The task is sufficiently important, sufficiently
challenging, and sufficiently vast to call for a coordinated
attack on all fronts.
C1g1
zedbyGoogle
APPENDIX A
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
Dig tized by
Goos le
C1g1tzed by
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
195
T,ble !-TENANTS ON ALL FAR~S 4NO ON PLANTATIONS IN TH[ SELECTED PL4NT4TION
ARE4 OF SEVEN SOUTH[4STERN COTTON ST4TES, 1910
Number
of
State
Counties
Inc I uderl
Seven cot ton
5t3les
.\labafflcl
.\rkansas
of
Ten3nt
Oper-,ted
F11rms
-
Percent
--- Fams
Ten11r,cy
946,693 653,607
69.0
47
23
205,969 B5.669
77. 749 55,027
161. 650 122,488
73,207 47,823
200,671 148, 785
79.6M 4J, 729
I ◄ 7,836 100,0ll6
65.9
70.8
75.8
65.3
74.1
54.9
67. 7
70
Louisiana
29
"ississi0pi
45
21
35
Percent
Pi,.nt~tion
Plan tat ions
no
Georgia
North Caro 1 in~
South Carolina
Total F;1r,ns
N""°"r
Nutnber of
fpn::,nt
Plant11t ions
PIJ.1ntat ions
raflt'S in
-----~~
33,908
----~-
Tenants
llero of Al I
Tenants
355.186
l0.5
54. 3
76,746
35. 179
57,003
;><l.654
9'l,'32
13. 548
43,624
10.5
13.2
8.6
12.0
56.6
63.9
46.5
67.0
66.8
Jl.0
43,6
7. 787
2,674
6,627
2
N~r of
Tenants per
Plantation
.,ao
7,960
I, 775
5,105
12.5
7.6
8.5
l•I'"'"•
c......
o/ r..-t rloaOUOII: •A c0fttl••ou1 1ract of land of co,ulderalle area ..der tM ,.,.ral
1111,.rvlslCN!I, or control, or a 11•1•• INllvid•l or fir•. all or• ,art et sell tract NI-, illvl...,. lalo at
leut I ••lier tract a, •It.II •n
to teM11ts, •
S•rc•: ,u .. , ..... c..... of, .. hUN ,..,•• , IIJO, 'IOIS. YI and ¥11, ... Yol. "· ca. lll, .,,.111at1- ill tM '°"u.•
lele:
I••--
Table 2-CHILDR[N UNDER 5 Y[411S OF A'.iE PER 1,000 N4TIVE-BOl1N fOll(N 15-U YEARS OF lGE.
IN THE RURAL F41111 POPULATION, gy COLOR,
IN UNITED ST4TES 4NO S[V[N
SOUTHE4STEl1N COTTON ST~TES, 1920 4NO 1930
411
State
R:!1Ce5
~tive Mhite
Negro
1930
1920
1930
1930
United States
(,0()
541
529
566
Seven cot tor, St1.1tes
658
591
609
568
Al•baooo
664
621
671
632
578
730
686
610
574
578
587
564
632
585
632
615
5'!0
57•
488
561
568
538
65A
589
lrkansas
Georgi!II
Louisiana
tilississippi
North Carol in!II
South C.nol ina
ao.rce:
603
600
620
582
,.,,...u c..... •I , .. hU•• llasu: JNO,
Table J-TYP( OF TENANTS ON PLOUTIONS, BY AR(4S, 1934
(Cotton Plantation [nu~eration)
Number of Plt'lnht ions Operated by
Area
Tot•l:
Nt.wmer
Percent
ltlantic CMst Plain
Upper Piechont
Black Belt•
Black Belt"
Upper Del ta
Total
Croppers
646
100.0
27
4.2
100
15.S
20
3.1
s. 7
56
6
1
12
3
15
-
-
2
5
5
33
'
I
8
7
3
40
112
99
133
L_, Delta
..,scle Shoal,
so
Interior Pl,1J,in
Wissi ssippi Bluffs
30
Red River
28
29
Arkansas River
Other Share
#age !lands
n
47
l
-
1
5
I
- - - '--------~ --
Renters
Ten"nts
37
-
1
5
17
3
-
-
12
I
2
l
I
8
II
-
5
2
-
-----.
-
2
-
-.,ixt!'d
462
71.5
38
35
87
72
87
28
18
21
32
18
26
: Cropper ud otller atlar• te,ianl .._jori\1,
le1111ter -jorit,,
Dig tized by
Goos le
196
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
Tobie 4-COLOR OF TENANTS ON PLANTATIONS,
(Cotton Plantation
~umo~r
Pf,,rcent
(o.,"";t
,.,.
Plain
Upp~r Piedmont
6130• s,, It
Blac• S,,I t
lhite
Negro
646
100.0
31
4.8
341
52.8
274
42.4
5ti
40
1
10
3
3
3
26
4
!>'
62
91
29
112
99
IBJ•
Up~r D~lt~
133
LO'Wf"r Delt,111
~5cle ShOl'l~
Interior Plain
a,ississippi Bluffs
Red River
Arkansas River
- -·
•c,o,,.,
•M
oti..r •"'•'•
0 1e11t•r . . jorlly.
50
22
30
47
28
29
t•ti•••
Both White
Total
--~ -
Atl,1Jntic
1934
~ r of Plantations by Color of Tenants
Ar~a
To,,') I:
BY AREAS,
Enu•er ■ tionJ
-7
-
ard ~ro
2b
55
34
39
37
6
15
26
3
1
13
9
15
18
!ti
20
II
9
-
-Jorlt.y.
Tobie 5-LANO PIIOPRIETORSHIPS, BY SIZE, IN SELECTED COUNTIES OF NORTH CAROLINA,•
GEORGIA,• AND MISSISSIPPI,< 1934
=====================~-~--==-====
Sire of Proprietorship
Percent
N-•r
Toto I
3
10
20
50
100
175
260
to 10 acres
to 20 acres
to 50 acres
to 100 ,.:res
to I 75 acres
to 260 acres
to 500 acres
500 acres and <:Her
79,456
100.0
4,058
4,949
5.1
18,767
20,240
15,242
6,590
6,122
3,488
23.6
25.5
19.2
8.3
7. 7
•cl•••lano. ldgecoaDa. &rNM, 11allfu, lraNII, Jo"••taft, LIMol•, IOlia ... , .. ,,..rro"'•
Uftion, and wl I 10,ii,
•••nks, 1errier,, 1111r11e, li,U1, c1a1. CoNta, OKah,r, .."9Mrt1, ror ■Jttl, ArHM, Jasper,
Johnson, Lincoln, Lo91'1dea, . .dlso11, •--ton, Pauldint, Po111, Pwtn•, s•ter, 1'a10ot, T•1falr,
Troup, and •lhH,
c,.d ... , Carroll, c1a,, CO&Jiloaa, Ovit.••• warr••• wu,.l111to11, •1111111 Ya•oo •
.... rce: t.-. dit• ■ ta 111 ne ,a ..ect Ive co••• In,
6.2
4,4
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
197
Table 6-LAND PROPRIETORSHIPS, BY SIZE AND BY AREA~• 1911, 1922, ANO 1934
Tr~cts by Acreage
Year"
Area
}-10 I 10-20 20-50
Total
Acres
17,-260 260->00 ~00 Ac res
~0-100 100-175
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
a.rd Over
I
JUl&ber
Black Bo It
1922
1934
541
586 2,250
15. 840
19,675 1,452 1,191 3,379
Upper Pi~mont
1922
1934
15. 930
18,482
292
604
1911
1934
9,839
10,406
415
400
483
671
1911
1934
8,563
8,592
307
330
1922
1934
9,761
13,050
253
Delta
Mississippi 81 uffs
Atlantic Coast Plain
547
3.817
4. 718
3. 789
4,056
1,960
2,034
1,657
l,61:i2
1,240
1.163
532 3,380
996 4,512
5,151
5,759
3,696
3. 766
1,419
1,464
1,034
937
444
2 .363
2,599
2,052
2,249
1.859
808
l,.;.)4
768
1.156
1.203
703
ti32
322 1.811
359 2,640
2,364
2,079
1,852
l,t,44
777
652
811
693
319
195
2,738
3,'44
1. 991
2,220
800
995
687
798
369
589
1,153
2 .334
3,433
426
460
Perce rat
Black Bolt
1922
1934
100.0
100.0
3.4
7.4
3. 7
6.1
14.2
17.2
?4 .1
24.0
23.9
20.6
12 .4
10.3
10.5
8.5
7.8
5.9
Upper PiedP10nt
1922
100.0
100.0
1.8
3,3
3,3
5.4
21.2
24.4
32.4
31.2
23.2
20.4
8.9
7.9
6.5
5.0
2. 7
1934
1911
1934
100.0
100.0
4 .2
4 .9
4,6
-6.4
24.0
25.0
21.0
21.6
18.9
17.3
8.2
7 ,4
11.7
11.6
7 .1
6.1
1911
1934
100.0
100.~
3.6
3.8
3.8
4.2
21. l
30. 7
27 .6
24.2
21.6
19.l
9.1
7.6
9.5
8.1
3. 7
2.3
100.0
2.6
4. 2
100.0
-·---- -- -
b.O
23.9
26.4
28.1
26.4
--
8.2
7.6
7.0
8.8
t,,I
3.8
3,5
----
Delta
Miss i ss i pp i Bluffs
Atlantic Coe.st Plain
--
-
-
1922
1934
---
~-
~-
-
20.4
17 .0
2.4
~
•s-01• couftti•• it1elllded: - 11ac11 lelt: ■ orlri caro1111a - union ar,CI RoD•5on; C.•orQia - lwtts, ci.,,
,reeM, Jasper, Jol'lns.on, Lincoln, ,ulna■, s~ter, Taloot, Troup, "llil~••• and Dou9l'lert7; Mississippi (117. lipper Pilt'dao11t: aorlti c ■ rolil'la - lutr,errorCI, Cle.,eland, Lir,coln. and 1r•O•ll; GPOrgi,1 - 1•11~1.
co .. t•, Jor11t11, 111.idison, ■ e.ion. '•ulClinf, ano ,011o. Delta: "i:u.,s,ipp, - .1.oa•s. Co:.iho"'•· ~uit1un.
••rr••• and •••nington. 11i11i11ippl 1111,,1: .,.,,1i11ippi - Carroll an(I ,11100 . .Ulant,c Co,nt '1ain:
aortll carolll'la - [09ecoa0•. lfilson, Joll111ton, GreaM. anO Mali tu; li,eor9i.1 - Telf,11r.
•••i:'11
to tne w11Hti1f.ctor, natwre
or tne
Oata for 1'll, ,,..
1••r 1911 ••• 111.cl as tile O••• for tile
Delta•'"' •iuiuippi 11wrr1 .1reas.
So111rce:
Tu di9esu in tt1e respectiwe co111l'ltie1.
hole 7-QP[RATORS OWNING OTHER FAR~S AND NIJIIBER OF OTHER F~R••S OW~[D, 9Y ~REAS, 1934
(t:otton Pl;intat,on Enumeration)
-- ..
Aree
Tnt,1 Opentors
Tot~ 1
4t I "Int
1C
Covit Phin
Uor.~r P i ~ n t
81,c, e,,1 t 1~1 •
91~ck Aelt I A)'
Ucoer Oll!-l 111
Owning
Other F1Ms
Tot~l ~umber of
Othe-r f.,:,..-r,s Ownfl'd
Other Fanns
per Opera tor
251
723
? .9
'i6
40
3?
?r
50
64
5?
IN
2.0
2.6
112
'19
-
Avenge \IJ"'ber of
646
49
I ?3
133
31
133
3.6
2. 5
4,3
'iO
?1
4
39
7
3~
J. 2
5
4. I
lo~r rlelt ..
1rilt..scle S~oal s
Interior Pl~1n
Mi~sissippi Bluth
R~ River
22
30
47
2A
Arkansas ~i..,,,..r
2'l
.
~r3:tOI"!,
II
12
10
I!
n
1.9
1.8
2.3
1.9
/r"fjppr • .,, Ol"-' share teonanl -.JoritJ.
lanter . . ,or11,.
Dig tized by
Goos le
199
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
T,ble 8-LANO
IN FAR',tS HELD Qy CORPORATIONS I~ ~FLFCTfD COUNT![~ OF
NORTH CAROLIO, GEORGIA,
AND ',tfSSIS5fPPf,
- - -- - - - - - - -
1___
North Carol ,n'I•
Arre'5 of F:1_1:r"' L,nc1
NL1T1bPr
Total farm 1and h~ld by corporations
land banks
Oeooo;, tory banMs
lnc;ur-'in(f" comp~n,es
Al I other corpor<'Jtions
Percent-
100.0
87,077
6C.0Z6
•rl.071
219. 25)
?<'.O
13.8
l l. l
'>'>.!
1934
GPor,J~lb
t4rrro; of
t
Nu,,b,c
F,rm L:,,nd
IPe,ceot
'75, lA'l
I
l\crl'!'S of Fu"' L'ln'1
- N,...,r,,.,
10'1.0
l'>. 7
Pe, c•o.-::
!Al ,O/Q
100.0
74 ,6>4
!Ob,4',6
%,66'
Sl.2
27.•
lH,?57
lS<,4ll
51.J
60,249
10.0
JJ. I
fi.6
6,ITTl
l. I
10,h!.fi '
Percl'!'nl of total 1'1:'1d
in f,.r-nCj he1r1 bv corpontion<;
1
11nion, tob•,o". 1n,on, Scoll11nd, ltul"••rfnn1, Cl,....•l!lnd, L•ncoln,
Jo,.n,to", Gr"'•""'• 1n1 •'••· L•no,r, 11"'3 s~o\on.
lr•.S.11,
C•l••t>",
[Clgf'rCJll'lb•, 11i1son,
blwtts, Cl•,.,,.., • .,'", JISpl"r, J0Pln1on, t,,.,rol,.., ~uln-, ')~tf'r, J11lb<Jt, troup, ••l•l"'I, Dou,;ihPrty, '""""•
CCO•f'ta. ror,,tt,, 111.md,-.o,,, le•ton. l'auld,n-1, l"ol~. Tf'lf.t,r, lurlllio, OPC"'t,,, lerriitn. "'"" Lo•ndits.
CoahOII'&. Qu,t,.•"• ••!r,h,n;iton. c.11,,011. ,1100 • .and Clay,
df11U•4 ,flot•, Cit-..!U of "tric11olh,.,,: za.,,, ,rel1•1n1r1
SOurc•:
••porl.
'•• cf191tsts in the ritsp•cl,vP cou"t••S.
Dig,
zedbyGoogle
Tobie 9-4CRES IN PLANTATIONS,
BY 04TE OF ACOUISITION,
193'
BY AREAS,
(Cotton Plantation Enumeration)
Total
P)a~
Area
i ng•
Total
4t1ontic Coast Plain
Upper Pie-nt
Black Belt (A)<
Black Belt (Bid
Upper Delta
L-r Delta
Muscle Shoal,
Interior Plain
Mississippi Bluffs
Red River
4rkansa, River
53,
•5
3•
Totalb
Nl.fllber
,so. 731 I
Before 1900
Percent
Nl.fflber
100. o
I 3'-134
Percent
1900 - 190~
Number
7.6 I 29,172
Percent
6.5
1905 - 1910
N1.1T1ber] Percent
30. 005
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
6'7
5-13
6,362
6.232
2.717
1.6
,.3
B.7
9.3
2.9
716
1.667
1.2A3
•.2A7
2,295
13.1
1.7
6.4
2.5
5,194
5.032
U
41.,6?
A,369
26,007
30.520
19
26
4f,347
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100,0
100.0
9,516
980
2,57R
1.971
'17
2,271
22.9
11. 7
9.9
6.J
3,1
5.0
A,030
160
812
5,575
975
3,372
19.4
1.9
J.1
19.3
7.1
7.6
2,A03
1.485
2.005
276
5.540
A6
101
U
17
20
13,628
6.7
I
1910 - 1G15
Number
I
I 36.25-9
- -T- T
P~rcent
1920 - 1G25
1915 - 1920
I
Num~r
I
e.o I ss.22c
--
Percent
14. 7
I
~lfllkr
I Percent
I 6G, 053
15. 3
1925 - 1"30
j Number
90,294
Percent
20.0
1910 - 1935
N1.1T1ber
95,596
I Percent
21.2
C:
'"Cl
'"Cl
t""'
tZJ
X
tZJ
•0.257
12.7;!8
73,359
66,946
91,10,
98
U)
NUl'NJer of Acres by Odte of Acqu1sit1on
tations
Report-
I.A
2,335
2.01•
3.321
5.8
15.8
•.5
7,A
5.4
2,0'331
1,949
5,161 I
A,037
6,539
5.0
15.3
6.A
\7,7
7. 7
0.9
5,797
5A5
317
2.194
1?.5
14.0
7.0
1.2
7.2
4.7
3,006
640
1.0
12.0
7.0
3,2'231
2,135
13,459
7,417
°,75R
4.7° 0
4,,;n1
9.010
1,4()0
7,959
11.1
15./0'
10.5 I Z1,Q2R
l
I
2,00C
I 5.582
R.11n
A.0
16.7
rn.•
I
11.6
23.9
21.9
27.3
,3.R
I
I
4,34•
1,009
170
1,6S3
2,r,,;o
6.A_l_4_-_"_1_1 _'.~_'.'.J~3o5
I
22.4
11.1
10.9
22.A
25.7
14,90'
1.ASn
24,225
6,790
11,371
)7.1
14.6
33.0
tO.I
12.2
7,386
1,165
l1.5A9
13,693
31.464
18.3
9.1
15.A
,0.5
33.8
10.5
17.1
1.4
5.4
19.6
3.1
2.466
1,135
7,0,0
2,561
3,273
5.9
IJ.6
27. 1
A.4
23.6
33.2
3,705
1,015
7,213
7,991
1,104
9,271
~.9
12.1
27, 7
76.2
A.I
20.9
14.72q
z
>-i
>
--<
::0
>-i
►
,:i,
t""'
tZJ
U)
0
(C
;;
;:;j"
•o.ta not avallaole ,or lU plantations.
~
ccropper artd other Oare tenant .. jority.
r::r
'<
blallCI in crops, ti llettle lana 1ale, pathre land, 110001 n:lt ~•twred, ano •11te lal'ld.
dlotlr uJority.
Gl
0
~, rv
....<D
<D
200
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON TUE COTTON PLANTATION
T,ble lc-il!SICE•T.
5fVI-A ➔ Si•TH.
••2-
.,.,£.1£! OP[R4TO~s. ~· ,Wl4S,
Isl<
t:ntton Pl,,'lt-1t,o,, l.nu .. fl'r1tinnt
Ar,--1
Toto!il:
-··
100.0
,.,
Atlv,t1r C:O.,sl Plain
Uppe,r P, M"'()(I I
Black ~It (Al•
Black ~It (BJ•
Up~r Delio
•u
•:,
J,
112
!'9
1:,
"11
ljJ
llJ
:,v
ll
.lh
,u
JO
,'Ii
lowr ~lh
-...Yle Sho•ls.
lnte-rior Pblin
.,
.. i,sis5ippi Bluffs
Red River
l•••d
hwN
V
1
m
OIi
V
tl'le plarit.n,cn .
iao,•
•id ll'9t II ire"" o,,arM•r, allCI " ' ' " ' " tiw pL••tat
de,..,., allCI otMr •••r• ••-•• -1.ri11.
•---•r-1cwilJ',
1
,
,b._,atot • • class,r,_.. •• •-i--w-tM ,r..., 1,wN
.,.. w1sitN H a, often•• .-cir a we•.
JIit
5
d
.
d
•o,..,ator - s cl•t.'lif,N •• re11ffnt ,r •
.,. .,,,.ct •• o.erseer,
t.,
,-;
,II
Ar-kit"l5115 River
•c
,,1
b>, l
b4o
Pl!-rce-nt
co,,.,o1tor _ , ch.11,,f1" ■ 'I IIDM•t- ;r
~fH'.i ,,_,, ..
lot-111
-----
'°"
•11111111
10 .,1., ~• ,~ pla11tat,o•
01•11 10 """''
tr.- t,_. pl1u1tat11,•,
les1 treqllltfll Ir '""n
OftCI'
•
-••·
Dig,
zedbyGoogle
,
To b i e ! ! - VALUE OF LAN O,
BUIL DI NGS, ANIMAL S, OD MACHI HERY,
BY AREAS,
1934
(C ot t o n Plan t !l ti o n Enum~ra t : on)
1
Ar e-3
_
____
1
To t a l
To u l
P l , n t ,1 t 1or, Sc
l J?
'l ., , : ., e,o
, . 11, .6 00
l owe r Do l t>
,<,
Al 'l,700
~;G .8 CO
Mu 5c l esr,.oal s
2£1
10
,16
29
2';.
l~t.1. i:; QC
1 , 'l: 1 ~. r.. oo
t .O(t.. . er) f
1 , i : J J , f('l f'
7 , '10 . ll) (' I
ti .,, ,.,.
. .... t1. D l e
ro t
11
D- L ■ n l.1t
A.n rr"\i1 l !i
t2 , SC1'. • 0o
s1. 1,1 .2.co
'!i ~A, l") ('
1 , 1~C. ~OO
fP f . SCC
1, 1 £ii. 3CC
t. l~ ] ,l<C,.lj
1
1
/.1 1cn irier 'I
$7• ~ .aro
- - - -·r--;: - -- - - -
c:::=
.,:,
.,:,
B-u 1111 n ~~
An 1"1'tl ~
Ma c: t-1n e ry
3. l" I
lt ,a,, o
! ;-:- ltl '
") , 40'3
l, E: l ':J
S·i3-
i , ;i:1
?.1-'f.
1 , 1¾1
~'::t~
i',J <•
10. n i:
l ,5'-1'!
l ,<P
)4')
>-i
14 ,7C,.')
1, 1'}0
l, ~(}7
12, 1, s
11. 171
6. ~ s
1 . 17$
"Mf.
? .?,~
::,:,
l ino
fo ta. l
$, B. W4
111. 679
I
1s . r,9+j
13 ,1 87
P , CTl
I
17, e,,;•·
I
;.
t""
t2;I
i34 ,9 00 I
l? ,90 U
81, 700
44 , '){)Q
2 1. 0C0
lI
lS' ,1C'0
!.-{5 . ~00
9 16 ,700
l 'iG .~CQ
l ,1'.3, 40 0
31J , 700
AJ . ,C,'J
:3" ,90 1)
n 1., oo
I
l Cl , 100
'-6 ,<H~o
0 .~0(
}', , >CO
17 .< ' l
1' . 48c
7 .101
1 ., ,5
7l d
l'9 , rt00
6:> 100
7 , c. co
•':i . 700
~6 . 400
7C, OO O
3) . 600
l ~ . 1 1.t
46 . c.17
1~ . t C
H"
l,':.i11
40\
4 , ;:p 7
2 , 0 70
2 , 3c.c
(.1 07
! . E..0';
~0 . f/J7
, .-: e.1
") : 1
1,P C
i:Jl
2 , C.00
>-i
'1:8 , 3E0
17, 07E
11 H. ,tl 39
•! '> . 017
ob, eO'i
10, 4Y,
4 , 3l 'J
, ., oo
cn
'lf '"l , t OC
1, 00 2 , l OC
... O. l 111 'IO I
Rui l t1 1nu 11, b
U 0 , 600
1,46\, ~~c
Bl uf f ~
Rea 'h v~r
Art..!.nl -H P1w r
cr
51 .1 , "l00 i
I
71 ? . ~00
l , '' '" · ·'CO
M1~s1 !i o; 1 ct1")•
<?>
Cl
LJnd
l. ~72 . i: ; OO
111
g~
I nt e r io r P \ 1 1n
;;;-
I
~
SIJ.100 ,QOO
1. 0 40 , FI OO
5(.
19
L_
!l~.,,,.,,ol
s,2
At l11n t 1c Coast Pli11r
Upper P1eu~n t
Gl ac • Bol t IAI '
Bl-1c k 3e 1t rn, a
Up per Delo
cg·0
r., ~:!1 1
Kt.!poft,nJ •
-
en
Va lu ~ pe r Pl,1nta t , on
V."l l ue
- -1 -
1• £ .,lC,0
10P . 1QO
171 ,000
77 2 5 00
71 .q OO
J • .t O(,
11 2 . 100
21, Bl ]
I
X
t2;I
z
>
--<
>
tc
t""
t%J
, o r. 1 ,
or 0 p1rator ' 1c r f 1•C1 • "'CII!: . 1 • "'" · " "" , c ,... , ,, ,r, e1 • • , 1.. :?o1•,:L
( nu,-,• r,n o r, _.,er e,
,11at r uc \ .. d \ o "• " t • r ... .. i., e 1o &l (0 '1 1 ' ' • .I I I H • .. ,H I C'\ • • 1..... . " CL 1,1. •!. l f' ll, • .l
r e l 11 • o r 111 11 1'1 1 ;:i ot c 11l •t , ~,. w&l wc-. •
' cr o ppt' r and o t "'f!r
1.11,1 , c- tt' l'll l"II • • ior 1t ~ .
0111" r t•1 ,ujo~, :,. .
'<
C')
0
a.....
fc;
[\)
0
~
I\)
~
t""
>
:z
0
C""'
0
::a
Table 12-CROP [XPENOITU~ES ON PLANTATIONS, 8Y AREAS, 193•
(Cotton Plantation Enu"'erationl
0
>
z
Total
Pl ant at ions
Art~
Tatel
Expenses
IFert i Ii zer I Food
0
b:cendi tures per Plantat ior'I
I ntentst
Total
Total
Atlantic
~
Co~ ■ t
Plain
Uoper Pi lctllont
ijlack tlel t IA)"
Bl•ck 3elt 1a1•
Upper Oel u
Lower Del 11
..._,,cle Shoels
Interior Plain
'4ississiop l ~luffs
0
'g:
;;;·
~
~
CJ
0
~,..._
rv
Red River
Arkansa1 ~ivtr
•cro,Nr 1"111 •'"-' 111al't ,.,.."'
•,.nor •Jorl11 ,
S.!17, 148
536,457
16',9U
51,260
195, 9!11 I
l)U.8161
869,61'
54,698
16 , 473
41,682
28,324
37. 822
4.~7
1,511
9,82•
5, lu•
2.282
1.•81>
5, 094
47
l8
50. 760
2,.067
97 ,299
153.292
201,534
2i
305. 409
56
40
112
!19
1)3
50
22
30
•Jo,1,,.
$2,2•3.006
18,688
3,325
7,274
)4,&89
2,267
)59
7,319
3.068
9,i40
17 , 509
iU, 5W $ ),472
Fert i Ii t•r
feed
S3J6
'149
2,001
7'6
4,J2fi
3,974
11, 56C
, . i45
1 ,,8<
l. 750
1.3.!1
6.538
977
U2
J7;:
83
36
t!lo
52
2!>2
1,812
476
1,036
7 ,)70
5,172
6,027
1.01;
1. 004
3,24.l
),'62
1,198
10, 531
46
68
170
2il-l
3"8
119
251
88
.
•5
16
,
65
355
bOI
➔
c,;i
Perc~nt
Ariount
I
I
I
I
1.,t,rest
Al I Other
Total
i 69
$,.~1.0
lOC.0
:;6
1.a•~
1~
J9
40
87
1,2;1
~43
5.~5
J6
.2
35
157
185
.08
098
2. 7i4
2,642
6,539
~.468
81J
8ijlj
rerti Ii ,er
z
>
Feed
Jntert!l
9.7
4.,3
2.0
84.0
100.0
100.Q
lU0.0
100.0
100.0
3).2
Jl . l
21.3
2l. 7
2.8
3.0
5.0
3,9
1. 2
1.5
2.2
3.0
1,3
6,.8
63.4
71.5
71.4
90.4
100.0
: •JO .O
l '. o. U
100.0
100.0
100.0
4. 5
6 ,8
5,2
12.2
1. 7
2. 4
) .5
2.2
1.1
87 . 5
89.4
86.2
8l.O
0
0
90.8
0
4.)
4
.o
4. 5
1.o
7. 5
,.o
4. 9
5. 7
4.8
2.6
2.0
Al I Qth•r
89.9
z
....
0
z
➔
:a
t:111
➔
➔
z
'U
t""
>
z
➔
....►
0
z
SUPPLEMENTARY TARLES
T,Ue 11-PLANT4TIONS ~I TH A,0 ~ITHOUT ro~~ISSA~l[S,
203
1934
RY AR[AS,
l(ottcri Plantation Enumeration!
T -Tot,l]
Totc1.1
.
1 Without COffi'Tli ss,1,ry
Numbt!;:- T -Percent
I
I
~i
th Compulsory
Conf1H"..S3f)'
N~ber
F,14
1~0.n
47n
74. 1
~5
!-Ii
100. n
4~
A:'. t
9
!; ~-er P,ea...-,unt
4n
IM.n
'"'L1c.; '1t!lt l!i.P
11'
Of'.n
11?
64.,
1
10
13
16
76.0
J
Q5.~
1
,c l0:i~t Pl ...i In
~t I ,1nt
:.'1:: ...
•-r ~·•'r
LNt<.!t
t Al'-
I n~':'r I
.1rC
~c
·,~ O"\l
P] ,!
1-'"'f1 ., •• ,..
lr:<,.1~
:~ti
1,1
f.oelt-1
er
11
• 1')$1 ".,':, I
,.)t'1
00
"'"'•l lt.:1
f.A:-"
V_,!,C I ...
'lot
,croppe~
n
s
1
1n
n
RI uf f::.
I
• 7
~? i ver
av~~
Af\d
1-,111)--;-I' -,~~
otl'er '"'are
h-i,\e.- .._ ,or,
..
Pl .int.it 1.Jns
~epor.t i n:t 1
Sum~r
PerZent
Ate...1
t,.
)1
07
1nn.o
H'0.0
on
100.0
IM.O
1r;i.n
100.0
1•
21
2•
100.0
7c,
100.0
pl:.:-t~"I~
\l'Nl'll
'
1m.~
7q
'
PF,.f;
"!'.A
34
6h. 7
7?.4
17
47 ,o
•
10
'7.F,
IP.
?0
'
'
•
I
t
Wi th;;t -Co,.;;,u 1,-;;-;;
Cortll'IS,::Odfy
Percent
Jolumte-r
15.0
50
7, 5
•.o
n.1
11.7
F,.n
4.
!0.9
I..
?. 5
4. 5
27
"
"· I
7?.3
9
1A.0
~
11. 1
17.0
3!'-. 7
67. 1
-
1
I
I
16. I
I
T Pe;,;~
6
5
~
I
20. 0
\0. ~
21.4
1
tn. 3
~---
.._Jor,t 7 ,
Dig ii Zed by
Goog [e
I:\)
i
t""'
z►
t::I
t""'
0
Table H-A-SOCIAL CONTR19JTIONS OF PLUTATIONS, BY AREAS,
:::0
0
\0)4
((:otton Plant.1tion Enumeration1
---I
Total
Area
Total
I
I
Bl•ck Belt IA)'
Black llelt IBI'
Upper Del t•
0
cg
N
~
-!?"
C')
0
a
~
Plantations
Report In~
Percent
tat ions
Contributions
Tctal
"'"
0
-':on1r, b:t1on•
144
A
14.1
??.5
21i. o
• 1..
36. l
s
0
3r,
00
4I
133
4A
Muscle Shodl s
Interior Plain
Mississippi Bluffs
27
30
47
To!Jl
I
2•
70
I
I
I
A
l
0
1?
7
17
1F.. 0
13.S
sr.o
,n. •
~-0
~P.~
'!,_0,
,r:5
Doctor
I t5,
I
').chool
'ZO
t?SO.
$\,P2J
Toul
Doctor
t"'1•
IS M.45
i ~•. 7q
iO
17.50
40. 'X'
O<
p
171
120
,n
tr~
1.1~7
1 :'"'...,
117
q-:i7
/;\I
? • •~'
1.~~
4?
21
1'1
S,1
l.~~
n~
?~
3~
s
10"
ll~
575
31~
300
J.~
nc
9
;,Fi~
440
~
<O<
7.,5
1'"'1
,,
on,
?'i
? .. J
15~
-
I
215
,n
!l7
R?
;~0
t.4_
I
":17
4~.•Jl
73, )0
70.?~
1r~.:xi
I
?15
I
tCl~.f\"l
21.~7
105.00
05.P1
~J.'Yl
74.11
~ 10. ;'Y,I
!""l'. ~7
,(0 7A
••.no
;,,;.n1
t1,AO
[nter-
I
!
1. 5S
-
➔
0
z
~
13.~
::c
cii:,
C)
1
y\_n,n
n,'il\
.,_!,
1~.22
7r" .'"Jr
1. 70
z
►
:z:
5.f'1
5_ci:,
'· 17
I
'). \J
,._ ,.~
~-~
4.17
l.~1
10.S?
?. ??
1~.?t:
n. ~c;
I
t111~·-ent
I t 1 2 . ~ S ~~--
,. ?~ I
15. 03
1~.M
10.n
'11.fj,.
I
:
I
n
"l
')chool
°'urc~
_t~~nt..._ _ _ _ _, _ _ - - - +
-
I
p<
•"20
i;c,
I
[nter-
Church
►
:z:
t::I
➔
Reportin~ .\'nount of Coritr1Lution
I
10~
•,or II o, \lie ltt phntat1on1 reporting• coritribution tl'le actY■ l 1-.01,1,it or tr•• contr,n1,1t,ot1 .. , not •w ■ il•:ile,
bcrop,er 1nC1 ou,,r 1nar, tllM"t .. jori ty,
clen11r .. jorit,..
Average per Plaritat ion
Anount of Contributions
Rf!'port i f1J
Actudl MOunt , - - - - - - ,
3(),A
40
~o
I
1
1~
l 12
Lo,,er Del ta
Arkansas River
or
.-- --- - - ---------- - - ----r--- - - - I
~
Atlantic Coast Plain
Upper ?1eane>nt
flej Qiver
I
Pla~
---
PJ antat ,on:.
1•. 3~
I
15. JS
0
➔
➔
0
:z
"O
t""'
>
:z:
~
>
➔
0
:z:
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
205
Table 14-B-SOCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF PLANTATIONS, BY AREAS, 1934
(Cotton Plantat i on EnuMeret i onl
N-r of Plantaqons
,_
Total
Atlantic Cout Plain
lipper Pi.......i
llec• lelt (Al"
lleck lelt 181 •
lipper Delta
i.c,. sa-,.
Lmer Dotlta
.,terior l"laln
lliaaiaalppl ltufh
llod River
Arka- Rlwr
Total
Pl anta t Ions
Serving aa
Parole
Sponsor
Total
4148
m
72
489
!16
7
11
14
e
5
40
1U
99
14
'"
37
llO
7
22
4
,0
19
47
28
29
:er.....·- ...., .,. ...., .,.,...,.
....... _...,.,,.
...
Allooing Use of Plantation
Owned Transportation
Paying
Fines
e
11
7
8
10
1e
e
Onc:e a Month
or Oftener
L. .a than Once
a llont h
)49
1,0
0
42
26
1
7
19
17
83
"
ee
97
110
9!!
1S
,,
•
-3
20
11
17
28
te
8
20
3
4
11
'°
23
7
15
7
24
19
9
12
Digitized by
1
Google
"'~
t:""
:a,.
z:
t:,
I:""
0
PO
Tobi o 15-USE OF LANO IN PLHTAT IONS, BY UEAS, 193•
t:,
!Cotton Plantation Enu~erat10nl
►
z:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
Arnet.
Total
Plantdtions
586,042
100.0
?4A,~\3
.Atlantic :::o ....st Plain
!',Ii
43, 0 79
10
17,474
1()(),0
100,0
100.0
3'.5
Upper Pi dOmont
Lo .. er ')el t.'\
llus.c:e StodlS
lriterior P!.,.,n
U,s~,s~,p01 Ali..,ffs
Rto R1 "t!r
Ar"-o::.f'1~d~ Q, ve r
~
0
0
~
~
I
42.4
7,0
4,4~9
1,140
10.1
dA.4
3c, C
6, Cl'j?
6, 5
7.9
~.~
fi,fi2"
•.o
7,53fi
I
4,~71
?,fi91
?, I I~
I, 740
I, o"
2,040
I
10C,0
133
\00,0
'?,t, q-,3
c,4.5
n
57. 31 o
12,200
1•.~
40.5
)4, 797
!M.O
100,0
100.0
!IJ0.0
100.0
100.0
\0,337
30
.,
;,q
20
6 cro:ioer &!'Id ott1er 1/'lere ttntnl ~jorit1.
11 tel"Ur '"'•Jo,,,,.
A7, qo4
3fi, •10
zs, 2n
•~. Cl'jQ
4, ~43
15,fi~
\7, 7~9
14 ,Ali~
2•. 1141
'
41,/)('0
A3, 1fil
137,111
.,
P"st ... re
I
.. .r,ti-er _ t: _ Derce~!---L-- ~~be!_ ~-~~~1!.______ __ ~~~e_:_. -~rcen~-+--
!fi,473
R, 459
3~.Rl2
2~. 3fit
112
09
I
Idle
.45. 1
40.1
.....
~7.9
5.5
!Ol.,307
'
J, 703
I
P.•
'
-
r
---
----+-
Perc.t-n!
..... .,.t.er
Pl!_,.<:_e,.,~
n•.~~0
}3,fi
53,619
q,?
~. ~91
I, 107
~u,'T".t,e:_ _
8.•
13,0P
3!. 7
~o
!0,4
'7' 51?'3
?0,0
37,4
O,fi
3.5~9
27,SA?
13. 3~3
32, :!10
20. 4
11,4
16.,
2).5
10, '11
3\. I
15, 0 ~ !
14,2
! ,9!)
A, 0-l~
29, 5
!!\. 7
,.~~
c-z~
~.fi
3. '?4
?'-.,
I~.~
17.7
A. -,cl
3.
31. 10~
II, 7 ~1
n.o
B.!
P,A10
1, 7)0
ft.1
4. SI\O
,
4. 7
•, 21n
13, I
l!.4
4. !
•• 3~1
4. !
4,321
t "·•
A. 7
t:,
--~t; -
7
~.coos
T - - - -,- - - - -
64fi
Ala:, Belt IAI•
RI dCk Be I t I Bl •
U,per Del ta
ll
--,
?ercent
Total
-c.
Crops
NU'l\~r
1
~
Total Acrea;e
Q, Q,17
?,of3
~. 57 6
'.®n
ii;, "14
4
~C:,lt
2: iE
I
\ ?.1
>-i
l;,:I
z:
►
z:
>-i
~- 3
0
~. 7
...=
R, 1
7, A
\1, 3
:z:
l'1iS
7,~
1n. 1
11,R
q,0
12.1
0
0
'"i
'"i
0
:z:
-,:,
~
►
...:z:
.......
►
0
z:
r
Table 16-CROP ACRES IN PLANTATIONS, BY TEN URE STAT US OF RESIOENT HMIL IES, BY ARE AS , 19)•
( Co t ton Pl a nta t i on (nu me ra t i o n )
Cl)
Plan-
I tat ;O il$
Area
Re par t-
To t al
1ng 4
U2
Total
0
N
~
:J
Hands
I Cropoe r s
Sha re
Ten-
tM, O
U. 5
4 2. R
J(Y\.0
7
2. ,rry
2°.e
43,
tM.O
35. 0
46 .
~
31. R
25. 0
Z0 .7
~ .n
A. I
). 2
52,P
19. q
25
7'
1. 22J
25 ,95°
1'7, 556
65 , 905
2, 151
9, 076
7, IA)
tR ,502
3, 159
12, 082
6, 5qt
)4 , Ra!
1, e04
RI.c k Re ll IA) •
Bl•c k llclt 101 °
Uppe r Cle I t •
.,a
Mi ss issippi Bluffs
Red River
Arkans .\ S Rive r
8
oa 1a
Nit 1 w1ll 1111f
,o ,
JR
17
2fi
I Jo.o I
I, 115
t r<>
84~
R.7~R
•.es,
•3J
894
15 , 47R
17, tJ•
),OR:!
17,743
2R,'JAJ
2,05
~.6711
12,1165
J , 6"5
653
7,962
9, ) 74
5 ,262
12,4 11
2.~
72 7
t, , 0A 7
t , 5) ~t
t , 79•
5,041
) ,091
1,773
J , 09S
Tot dl
Nage
Hctnd~
Croppers
P.n~s 1on.n
1.~tn inn. o
. 131
1, 31 0
l,!!84
30
12
• 5. 1 1 15. 6
4. 9 , 42,1
1100. 0
u. o
I R. 2
100.0
16 . 0 51. 4
100. 0
18,0 5A, 7
100,0
41.3
44 ,6
100.0
100,~~-7
I
5. 5
I
I 1. ~n1 I ~.734
q, 1
R,AA6
7. 2
I. 5
10. •
)5, A
2. )
44 I
!AA
740
e3q
0\7
3,011
57
! Pq
217
176
17 . 5. 135, ij
)R. 6 ""· 2
32,6
Share
Ten-
Ren te rs
Total
'1a9e
Hd 'lds
Cr opprrs
18, I I c,
13,q 0, 7
10,q .l._0.t
l)Q
5<5
40A
74
IR1
32
773
5'7
6°
19q
1,174
j_l7R
,~
.7
JP
111
)t
40
317
70
7
Jt
51
2q
tli
71
2~
53
10
17
71
16
7.)
15
IA
,~
33
38
37
77
45
26
JI
13
37
JO
70
18
72
14
25
31
10
16
54
IZ
n
•t
?3~
7P
614
toj
---+--,5
25
20
771
170
« R
803
er s
45
782
75 U 55
F¥;
24R
120
256
125
•6•
~1
3m
R~nl -
25
11 . Jn"
7, 013
Share
T~nitnt:.
dn t !:I
an ts
I 100. 0
fi, 590
Ri,nters
5h.-ire
Tet\-
I 1a."'o
6,81\J
J•
17
#ag~ Cro~
Hands pe rs
l24 ,l3 5 I R7 . 20J 1102. 565 I J• . A~A
15 , 4 \S
77
Totc1l
a nt s
44
74
Re nters
Othe, r
Other
Ot her
Othe r
Atl ant ic Coa st Pl ai n
Uooe r P1e<)non t
Lo .. , De l ta
Uuacl e Shoal s
Interior Pla i n
<g
wage
Crop Acres per F'11mil y
N1J1"t1be r of rdfnil 1es
Pe rc ent of Tot al Crop ..\cros
Nul'ftber of Crop Acres
Tot•I
,n
\ ~I
15
65
t
,
],I
23
24
..,,c:::..,,
t""
c;o
3:
t:a;I
%
~
33
7'.l
25
93
12
24
25
JR
•2
24
>
~
t-<
~
>
r.i.,
t""
c;o
Cl)
3n
17
10 , pl a "t 1. t,o,u .
0 c,o,oer and 0111.e, 1-.1 ,a tu•nl . . ,o,,t,.
'•anur • jor,t1,
C')
0
a(i.)
N
0
-..J
208
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
Tobie 17 -RATIO OF PRICES RECEIVED FOR COTTON ANO COTTON-SE[O ANO FOR ALL AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITIES TO PRICES PAID FOR COMMODITIES BOUGHT, 1924-1935
-== ==--__:_-=;=------ - --- -------:...c-=-=-=-=--=======
Year
for Cott on and Cott o~sN!d
1924
13°
113
192~
192b
1927
192B
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
l93~
For Al I
A.gri cul t-ural (Cffl".odi ties
94
99
79
9,l
84
9A
94
01
96
95
70
A7
51
70
44
61
59
64
~o
7"l
81 •
El6"
•,r•l•••l'\Ary.
SoiHc•:
r••
.ljrt.e"''"'•' J,hooUO"',
"tol. 10,
If>,
l, p.
,1a,,...,,.,
I, 1111, u. S. tureau of A9ricwltura1 [c.ono-,cw,
U,
Table IS-AVERAGE NET DEMAND ANO TIM[ DEPOSITS IN BANKS LOCATED IN TOWNS
OF LESS THAN 15,000 POPULATION IN UNITED STATES ANO
SEVEN SOUTHEASTfRN COTTON STATES, 1929-1935
Year
United States
Seven Cot ton St atn
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
100
100
91
94
49
M
65
57
52
31
31
67
53
J8
Dig tized by
Goos le
Toole 1 9- PLANTAT ION LI VESTOC K, BY ARE AS , 1 934
(Co t ton Pla n t a t i o n [ num e r a l io nl
Area
I
Pla~~:~:ons
Tot111l Li,.,estocli:
Ml, J~.., !nd
c...,
Horses
Total
Uooer 0-1 ta
11 , oct,<
4, 517"
~
!>17
274
Ylll
7M
2,604
528
22 8
2,331°
3. 55&
l. 732•
285
128
1, 012°
1. 300
238°
Low,r Del ta
lluscl, Shoal,
50
2~
M1s s1~c.tpp1
lntf'rior Pla,n
Bluffs
JO
47
Rf'ld Riv er
28
•rkansas Ri ,, e r
29
•c,o,per
0
ci:i'
""
;;;
~
-'Z
CJ
•"°
r
-
8 tl29
40
112
99
133
Bl ack Bel I (A) •
Black Bel I (BJ'
r
1>16
At I an t ,c Co.'lst Plain
Up~ r P,eorront
--
Calve'\-
otl'ler a 111ere Ut1el\1 . . Jorlt,,
109
l , 279
117
4 60
309'
414
1
740
746
l.lf,4J
·
b&>
6'1.
_ _ 2~
391
1)5
1
93
;3:;~
I
,3~•
.1_c1'
- -- ---- - -N~r per Plant1' t •on
Pigs
Ch ic kens
Coos
--
-
8,733
31. 961
9,9
163
l, 757
l. 024
2.051
3.305
l.tt1>2
5. :!25
4,84 6
6.280
6(,
18
7
14
49
l7
59
47
48
--
9
5
1
6
21
3b
13
3
4
JO
13
2
16
10
15
ij
lJ
5
15
12
15
20
9
8
20
~9
5
4W
1, cjt.S
lt
,1,
2 . 532
1.2~
954
lb
27
40
_:_€~
Pigs
10
2.b87
l.100
55~
en
Calv• s
8
2b
5
10
15
22
10
6
3
7
16
4
Ch ic lien5
4~
0
._,
._,
t""
t,;J
:x
t,;J
:z:
➔
>
--<
47
,.
:::0
50
62
➔
►
co
54
43
t""
33
t,;J
en
tl••rillr i-.. JorltJ .
C. I , • ~·
0
,, "CO • •
• • •
f
" CO• I
)Jl
w,,,
" CO • I
" CO• I
.,us
111'10 C a lves • IIOI I IIO • f\.
c al• • · · l'lOl 1 1'10 -.
a11 0 Cal.~ . -
"'° '
11'109'1,
·"" cal • • • • not 11110.n.
•co• • al\O c a h1 s • 110 1 l"<l • n.
r,10 "C.o • • a l'IG c. a l"'••• l'IO l 11to • n.
0
arv
N
0
<O
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
210
Tobie 20-0PERHORS' LONG TERM DEBTS, BY AREAS, 1934
(Cotton Plant at ion [n'-"'l!rat ion)
Aru
Ooerators
Total
Reonrt i ng
Ooer- ~ ~ L _
-ltors N.- ~r-
Total
At l l!lnt ic Coast Plain
Upper Picdi'ftont
Blod Belt 111•
Block Belt 1e1•
Uoper Delta
t.o,,er Del to
-.,scle Shoals
ber
cent
646
28'
u
56
40
22
21
112
.,.
99
133
37
48
50
20
5
16
22
19
20
Interior Plain
Mississippi Bluffs
22
30
47
Red River
28
A.rkansas River
•er._,.,. aM o,,..,.. ....,,
29
39
53
48
37
36
40
23
53
47
68
69
Percent of Operators ~ort ing Debt
Debt per
Operator
lierReport- Mortoo... er~ Other
ing Debt gage Boni< ch.ant Account
..... t
Total
Debts
-
Note
°"""
2.5
2.1
1.8
-
-
S3. 330.160
$11,726
88.0
6. 7
137.275
l~.938
154. 7•3
756,989
6,240
•. 997
7,055
4,182
15,771
100.0
100.0
90. 7
81.1
93.8
1.9
5.4
4.2
4.8
1.9
2. 7
•.2
141,543
18,900
134, 790
187,'10
563,133
749,489
7,071
3. 780
8,424
8,519
29,639
37,474
70.0
40.0
93.8
95.5
68.4
90.0
25.0
5.0
380.950
-
-
-
•.5
21.1
15.0
-
3. 7
10.8
-
--
5.3
-
4.2
--
1.9
5.4
-
60.0
10.0
-
-
6.3
6.3
4.5
1.6
5.0
-
1.6
-
t.e11ut -Jorlt,.
b ..111ter NJ.,-ltr.
Table 21-FARM MORTGAGE OEBT, BY TENURE OF OPERATORS,
IN UNI TED STATES• AND SEVEN
SOUTHEASTERN COTTON STATES, 1910, 1920, 1925, AND 1928
Es.ti~tert Farm l4Jrt~a~e Debt
Percent Inc red.sec
(in thoosdnds of jolldr!:t)
Are,1 d.n:i Tenure
1910
·-~-
191(}.. 1920 19?(>.10?5
1920
1925
1928
B.320,470
2, 107,AOO
977,730
144,940
i7,A57, 7110
,. 314, \50
2, 1A5,4AO
358. 070
$A, 360,620
$9, 46A, 526
5,560,017
3,64',00G
264. 500
136.6
141.R
123. 5
147,0
19. 1
3.6
65.3
-31.9
165, 7A0
~A. 920
69, 700
7,160
.. 2,630
241,620
!A?.160
16,6~
637,597
331.363
280,494
25. 740
167.0
171.7
16!, 6
160. 5
32.9
27.9
,1,3
15.4
-
1915-1928
United States
Totdl
O*nersb
Tendnts
M.tna~ers
5,504,437
3,612, l!.'1
24 3. 990
1.2
1.0
0.9
R, 4
Seven cotton stale~
Total
O•ner~ b
Tenants
~M~crs
9lA. 0"2
3Cf!,979
257. 645
11. 5\6
R.4
7.3
8.9
19.6
•11'1 f!dd,tion to the hr• 110rt,aav• deDt •• reporled b7 ,,.. tena111, the eat,-ted hr11110rt~g• detlt Oft other fanae fta1
been IOOeCI.
bt~l11dH a11 ~rt owrwra,
c(-) iftd1c1te1 • decrease.
lowrce:
•lc1oen1, David l., '•"'• llo-rit-,• C'r•dO, Ill. S. 0.pert . . nl of a9ric11lt11re, Tecl'ln1c11 111l letin lN. r.ciruery 19JI,
pp. )-1, and Appendl• pp, tt-t7.
Cig1
zedbyGoogle
I
SU~PLEMENTARY TABLES
211
Tab le 22-RA Tl O OF IIORTGAGE DEBT TO YA LUE OF ALL FAl!IIS IN UN I TED STATES ANO SEVEN
SOUTHEASTERN COTTON STATES, JANUARY t, 1910, 1920, 1925,
ANO 1928
R,ttio of Debt to Value of 411 Fa,,..
IP'!'rcentl
Stc1te
19;!1
1910
1~20
1925
United St.ates
9.5
11.A
1A.9
21.0
Aloi.-
A.6
10.2
10.2
7.•
A. 7
0.8
5. 3
6.3
16.0
1A. 1
1R.6
17.R
17.8
20.R
n.9
Arkansas
7.Z
Georg id
6.0
R.O
9.•
Louisiana
Yiss1s.sippi
!lorth Carol i na
So1.1th Caroli M
•.z
6.2
20.3
n.s
26.9
10.5
21.2
8.5
15.0
Tobie 2)-FIIE()UENCY OF FARII MORTGAGE DEBT IN UNITED STATES AND SEYEN
SOUTHEASTERN COTTON STATES, BY TENURE OF
OPEIIATOR, JANUARY 1, 19 35, .UD 1928
All
Fu1 I O«oer
Operdted fa""5
FanM
State
Part O.ner
Ten:tnt
Operdled Fams
Operated Fams
1925
1928
1925
192A
1925
1928
1925
192A
Uni led States
3,4.8
36,0
3,4.0
3•. 7
41!. 1
•A.5
32.5
34.8
Alabana
Arkansas
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississipt)i
28.9
J0.5
36. 7
Jl.5
J0.8
J). 7
22.5
Jt.O
29.8
J2.5
27.2
27.0
3).0
18.A
26. 1
30.6
3•.9
26.2
29.3
JJ.9
20.B
27.5
30.2
J5.4
27.2
32.8
34.8
22. 2
2•.5
Jl.3
38.0
26. 7
35.6
36.0
25.1
26.3
28.2
34.3
30.6
28.5
31.2
21.1
29.J
30. 3
37.8
34.3
J!.4
33.5
33.7
29.6
2B.2
31.9
20.1
28.2
North Carol i na
So.th Carolina
n.9
32.9
Table 24-FARII LANO HELD BY CORPORATIONS IN 46 NORTH CAROLINA,• GEORGIA,•
ANO IIISSISSIPPlc CvJNTlf~- 1934
11...
Acres
to. 929,A68
Total • - in f a Tot.I land held by corpar•tions
Land ba,.s
lleposi tory banks
100.0
251!.370
23. 7
16.9
JJ.1
26.3
286. 7).4
Other
.._lif•••
1,091,596
184,739
)61. 753
lnsurarce ccnpanies
'••••• ---••• a-,.on. Scot1aMI •
Le. . ir, •nd SUlipMA.
Percent
..,,.rren1.
c1.,..1a11111. Li11eo1-. 1r. . e11. tata-.:. ldgK~•. •Its• • .,.._., •••
s.,.... •
bllitts. Cl•r. Cr••"•• Jaap•r• • • - - • Li.c:ot11, ""'-•• s-1•r. Talbot, Tnu,,. Wi 111.n, Dou9fllertr, .. •••• ce.e1a. Fer&)'L•.
lllld11oO•, . . . ,on, Paiildi"I, , . , , • Telfair. l1111r••• Deut1111r, .. rrlen, and L011ftdea,
cee.--.. 0-itaa•. WCSl'liftft.oa, C.r'911, T&Zff, •NI ,,.,.
S..n:a: Tu ~lh1eats ia , .. ra,-:t.iwe ce.U•••
D1g11zedbyGoogle
....
(\)
(\)
t"'"
z►
t:,
t"'"
0
Table 25-AIIOUNT AND ANNUAL RATE OF INTEREST OF GOYERNIIENT, MERCHANT, FERTILIZER, AND BANK LOANS, BY AREAS, 1934
(Cotton Plantation EnU1Mrat ion)
Goverrment Loan&
Aree
Total
Plantations
P1antat ions
Total
Reporting
Alllount
of Loens
loans
Total
Atlantic Coa:r.t Plain
Upper PiedfflOnt
Black Belt (AJ•
Black Belt (BJ"
Ui,per Delta
0
cB
;;;
m
Cl.
cr
"<
[';
0
a
,-~
Interest
Pl l!lntat ions
Repcrt ing
Amount
Loans
of Loans
S90.866
Total
-
Aven1ge
Annual
Rate of
16.4
7
SJ,422
Jli.B
26.5
22.J
16.2
10.5
1
100
2
1,642
1,680
Interest
S164 ,21'
10.4
48"
6
4
1
7
11
11
10,600
4J,650
10.5
9.5
8.0
12.B
11.0
4
40
112
5,500
6,775
9
7
6,200
1,700
12,910
7,075
14,443
2
2,910
14.5
6
7,090
11.0
1
4
2,000
7,900
Jl,548
10.0
10.9
17.1
133
Mississippi Bluffs
47
28
29
JO
JOO
9
-5
10,295
7,075
12
77,109
6.5
-
15.5
10.0
J
-
J
-
•cro,"r ano other ,,..,.. UM ft\ Mjor 11,.
blet1ter •Jorlly.
clewH •"II 1eea1 ,1a111allon1 'l"e,orted . .rout lNM Dul tw -.11u or lH INM •re Nl
dll•INA Mdlll••· ,, ... ,.110111 re1111orteel HNI loan• ... , Ulo -11•U or", ... loano
.,.11 ..10.
•r• "°' •
•.-all•••·
-
-
Total
"""""nt
of Loans
57
99
Plantations
Reporting
Loens
56
50
22
Red River
Aven1ge
Annual
Rate of
646
I.ewer Delta
lluscl e Shoa I s
Interior Plain
Arkansas River
Fert i 1 izer Loans
lil!rchant Loans
-
-
-4
--
-
-
--
111:1
t:,
z►
Bank Loens
Avenige
Annua 1
Rate of
t:,
Average
Annual
➔
Rate of
Interest
po.
P1 antet ions
Total
Reporting
Loans
Amount
of Loans
21.1
22~•
$484,066
15.2
➔
5.4
19
5
44
11.7
18.7
17.0
21.2
14.8
0
27.2
14.0
27,250
2,100
35,725
23,250
153,136
15,400
6,325
19,605
90,175
6J,500
47,600
lJ.9
20.1
Interest
-
-
24
52
12
10
11
29
B
11
11.7
lJ.6
11.4
24.2
ci;
z
z
z
➔
ca
ci;
n
0
➔
➔
0
z
-,:,
t"'"
►
...z
...
po.
~
0
!Z
SUP PLEME NTARY TA BLES
T.-. b le L 6 -
l li .1 ~"; C L OS [O r HR OUC,H f [[tr !fAL
Of
213
Hd r l, Mf j , .1 Tl Oi/f E., J f
~
... JJ<nb,H
& ~.,..
t"'I'
i, l.'.K 1 r r1 :::; ~· CPV£ lrrl l / Ail (.i ~
Tr1R OUC H O( Ctli ~(q ~1 . 1 !' 1 ,1
Pf.: r.. u CTI O~ CP F_ O I T ASsn C IAT I Q l"'! lj
I
10 '1'
! 7.1 ll>. 611
l<i
~v•n cott on ,;,11 t • ,
.! c-
~•rcf!'n
-, 1 .. :0,
of Uru t l"':d St
Al '1 0,,'ft\
.• . 64 0
;,,i:,. : I J
1.. .~:-:.
J.:
Ari-'n~ 'l"I
• ,!16: . 1G3
,;- 0 ,- ? l ll
<.,J}b
: ,".:flt:1. ~ X.
Lo u1-.1 .J1n~
• .14 2
, , 44 /, 7.\ (,
li,,li, ,o;, io;:i,it"P I
, . 631
) , , t i , ~"tl(}
11, oo3
Mrtl'I W r ol i na
Sou h c~ r ol , M
, . Ubl.1 / :>-C t
•. au. odd
•b l e 27-IUIIB[R Af\0 AMOUN T Of [ IIC RG[ NCY Ci:lOP PR OCluC TtOfll LOAN S IN S[\l( N SOU TH[ &S TC RII COTTO N
192 1-193 0 ,
-
U,-.it ~
1921 - 1930
f---~
121, )JO
StalH
n , 612
~ " cotton Stat M
Seven cot Ion
St ■ t~ :,
1931
59. 1
r,~
)j
•)B.93,1>OJ .CJ }
t,) J . >tl
197.1 11 1 l>0 . 89'1 365 . ,
a"i.
percent of twiited s1 ~t es
--
~rl'IJJ :e•.l"'
,....,.,
State
44. 9
U ) ,196
oo!
I
1u. m
.6! , e.1
!!::1 (;:;.," , 2.1 ~
4 9.4
~7
I
&lal:lailie
&rka~ !.
20 , 714
~::~~
Georg ••
2a, 68l
17 , 775
l • , 85J
16, 185
JO ,
,0, 06,
Lou1 ':il 11n1
Wis.s1!1Si pp l
Nortti C.rnl i ,.
South Carol i ne
... re..
,....,._, ,
I
1, 711
?0 . 561
79Jl
17 .105
, • ..,.
surp; ,
1'.:1 ) 1, 19 J2 , 1 9 )3 . ANO 1934
51 5. 194
s . 90'J
58. 6
l ~ . r.,)
, 2. s)~
) .~
)9
u.1~1 l J , 1
l~.b9t,
j 9 , 207
U , 6 7l:i
56.; 4b
21,,,.l
36.1'2 1 64 . 0'.J 1
31 . 2~11 ~
"° 1
J'.., O'JI
1
''•i•ul"•'' - • , _ , • ..,,.rt, JNJ , ....... h
TM I• '"·
JJ. 9:l!,
•""
I 1n t housards o f do l h1 M J
"""""'
1932
193)
193,
. 181
!ibl .=
~ 1. Jlti
i J l. 897
,5. 1,.
r.. .318
3O,nl
1) . 9U
~
I
II ' ~-1
I S 9,2,66]
206
-
1.~ 1
J . 19 1
11•
2 . Sll
4 , 4' 2
2 .182
96)
,- 1......,. ,.,., ...~ I •
)i. •
S3.5
S 1, 620
S I .J~
) , 676
·-~
4 .001
2.0
J,
•. 181
•. 31
r•t•
:tt . T
s
7!f1
1, ':!J~
'·"' ,.~
2 , 6'"5
1. n 1
4, 244
1,4Jd
6, 01'
1, 7
1 , 1':> 1
6, 183
- -- ~ - -
M.
D1gt1zedbyGooglc
214
LANDLORD AND TBNANT ON TBB COTTON PLANTATION
Table 28-SEED LOANS IN SEYEN SOUTHEASTERN COTTON STATES
(Appropriations of 19~1t,.•)
State
1.oa,.
• - • of Fain Countiea
Included
Ratio of Loana
to Faraa
lllnber of
Year
,.., ...ti
Ala-
19)0
1931
1932
1933
1934
6,438
19, 7)8
20,218
33,773
15.272
174,211
255,154
257,395
257,395
257,395
3.7
7.7
7.9
13.1
5.9
Arun...
1931
1932
1933
1934
78.~
47,467
51,439
26,)65
242,334
242.334
242,334
242,334
32.3
19.6
21.2
10.9
Georgi•
19JO
1931
1932
1933
1934
11.703
17,775
U,215
6J, 146
36. 907
221,277
245,935
256,246
255,598
255, :>98
5,3
7,2
17,3
2,. 7
15.2
Louisiana
1931
1932
1933
1934
24,A5J
26,411
3~. 897
21. 613
122.280
154,661
161,U5
161,445
JO. 789
Jl2,663
312. 663
312. 663
312,663
9.8
13.0
18.0
8.9
207,384
8.5
13.2
22.9
12.5
llississ1pp1
1931
1q32
1913
1934
North C,,rol; na
South Carolina
.....
,"""·
........ ,.,.
, ... IJ, ,.,.
56,345
27. 793
1931
1932
1933
1934
17, 7De
36.955
e.,051
34,851
1931
19)2
1933
1934
7,884
37,)27
80.608
17.1
22.2
13.4
279,698
279. 708
279,708
157,931
157,961
157,931
157,931
31,1188
........
11.,... ...
...
5.0
2).6
311.4
20.1
rr-o. U•• foll .. l•t a,,re,rlall•-1
Aiftl 1Nllll .. ,.. aM•
Tot.al
... ,ce1
,o. 518
20.,
, ........
Hl,IM,111
,.,_ ~ U ,._,IMaanU•. , _ , ,_,..... .. /.,, , _ NI IN4.
Tab 1e 29-CASH COLLECTIONS IIADE ON EMERGENCY CROP PROD UC Tl ON AND FEED LOANS
IN SEYEN SOUTHEASTERN COTTON STATES, 1931-1934
Percent Collected
of Ya lue of Lllllns llilde
A•~mt Collected
( in thousands of do Ila~)
State
1931 •
19328
19Jt
1934°
'25,13!1 S27,878 $)4,13) $17,610
United States
Seven cotton States
Value of collect ions in seven
cotton States as percent of
U.S. tote! collections
Alaballll
Arkansas
Georgia
Louis iara
$
Mississippi
North Carol i na
South Carolina
11,651
lJ,624
24,472
46•4
,.a.9
71. 7
818
4,505
939
1,320
2,293
1,.)46
430
s
546 S 1,896
2,025
1,806
1,637
2,239
2,923
2,448
2,552
4,830
1,883
2,921
4,942
5,448
12,210
19)1 8
19)2"
19J3b
45.1
4.).4
!511.5
46.5
46.3
53.8
79.7
87.7
J0.7
48.9
)3.7
50.5
37.0
67. 7
51'.6
69,9
56,6
80.6
93.9
67.1
9).0
86.0
88.2
90.0
19)4°
69,3
s
750
1,298
2,821
1,050
1.300
2,443
2,548
36.9
41.3
Sl.6
61. 7
44.6
ea.,
87.6
71. 7
68.8
82.2
86. 7
92.4
•c•11ect1on■ orov9ti eo..-er ,o, it,,,
bu•' ...,.... r ,o, .,,,, Hl1 caah ce11ectlea■ c:rNlled to ,rlnclpe.1 on loan, . .,url .. 111, lllal
Nie are IIICIINled.
CAI af lrK. . .r Jl,
INl'HI , - . Or-MU A. .M,etNI..., A - I ,__.,, JIU, . . . . . . t•te JI, ..~ A--1 1-,.rt,
...
It,...
,.,.... .. , "·
I_,
D1gt1zed!:JyGoogle
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
Table JO-FINANCIAL R[SULTS
or
215
PLANTATION fAIIILlES, BY TENURE STATUS, 19J0-19JJ
(Cotton Plantation [nu•ralionJ
Fin111roc ial
Re-suit
and Year
.
Total
.-.,
Percent
..,_,
~rcent
.
Other Sh,are
Crc,c:ipe,rs
Wag,e Hands
.....,.,
~rcent
.-.,
Oisplace<t
TeMnts
Renters
Te-nants
.,_,
Percent
Percf! nl
Tot11l
•.227
J,628
307
292
100.0
ll>.8
7.J
6.9
• .o47
J . 22•
355
468
100. 0
79. 6
8.8
11.6
J.8 76
2. 984
395
,91
ICXl. 0
77.0
10.2
12 .8
Total
). 706
100. 0
Gau,..
l.,.1
1. 749
7'.1
470
•87
12 . 7
lJ.1
Los,
"''"""
[,en
817
79)
•
20
100.0
97.1
0.5
2.,
2.2JO
1,933
145
152
100.0
86.7
6.5
6.8
100.0
95.•
0.9
J. 7
2,130
1. 680
202
244
100,0
79.0
9.5
11.5
100. 0
95.1
1. 7
J.2
2. QJI,
1.550
2JI
255
100. 0
76.1
11 .J
12. 6
100.0
9).8
2.2
1.959
1.•Jl
2 74
25J
100. 0
7). 1
14.0
12.9
JifL.lftber
l
IIU
525
•JO
6'
JI
Percent
I
100.0
81.9
12.2
5.9
619
100. 0
71.1
14 .9
14 . 0
J6
92
87
100.0
7).0
12.8
1' .2
611
411
78
122
100. 0
67.2
12.8
20.0
)'
29
100. 0
65. 7
16.6
17. 7
60<
• 06
69
129
ICXl.0
67
11.4
21 . •
3'
100. 0
61.6
22.2
16.2
589
3115
76
128
100. 0
65. •
12. 9
21. 7
JJ
29
I
100.0
81. 9
3
9.1
uo
32
2
2
100.0
88.8
5.6
5.6
IHZ
folal
Gained
1=,
1...
766
7JI
7
28
506
369
6!,
72
J
z
100.0
115. J
8.8
5.9
1131
Tot~!
<,a;n,d
Lost
[ yen
715
680
11
23
INO
lwn
651
611
14
26
• .o
I
487
320
Bl
86
.,.
292
105
77
.z
28
2
•
100.0
82.J
5.9
11.8
).0
Table 31-AIIOUNT ANO COST OF CREDIT USED BY 588 CROPPERS ON 112 FARMS IN
COASTAL PLAIN REGION (NORTH CAROLINA), 1928
Type and Source or Cred i t
Total
Mount
of
Cretli I
A.er,-ge lmount
of Credit
Per
r.,.,.
Per
Cropper
Actual
Interest
and Tin-e
Charges
We;ghtod
Avenge
Tem of
Loon
per
Cropper
("'°"ths)
••ightod
,..,rage
Con of
cr..,;1
pe,
Annum (SI
lle;ghtod
Average
Flot Rate
per
Doi lor (SJ
S 6-1,053 S
sn
SI09
$ 9
4.!ll
20.91
8.52
Fam supol in. ferti I irer, etc.,
by fann cwner and ,_,chant
n,3,5
691
132
29
8.32
32.06
22.23
Household SUPl)I ;es by
fam CW1er
66,7 18
596
113
25
4.82
5J . 46
21.49
Cash edv.,ces by f am oaner
Household supplies by,_,_
chant on fam Olll"ler• s guarantee
31. 768
184
54
15
'· 70
71.29
27 .94
Total supplies or nierchant
credit
175,831
I. 570
'99
69
6,3-4
•3.50
22.98
Total advances. cash and
suppl its
239,884
2,U2
,oo
78
5.95
38.56
19.12
lt•ru,
-.OtM, •· •· . e.,-,u h-o11 ... o/ Joru ~ou~• ffr-~ ,-._,., IOrlJI carol 111a
111rlc•ll•ral
1111io,. 1Mlleti11 211, Jt,o, ,. H,
lx••rl•"'
Digitized by
Google
216
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON TDK COTTON PLANTATION
Table )2~ROSS INCOU£ 0
Of 6C5 PLANTt.TIONS, 19:H
(Cotton Plant at ion lt.nuaerat ion)
-r
Total Plantations A.port i"lf
Size of Gross I nc.0111e
Total
100.0
96
1'.9
J2.1
16.7
9. 5
7.6
i..e.s than
$2,000 to
5,000 to
8,000 to
11,000 to
S2 ,000
5,000
8,000
11 , 000
M, 000
207
108
61
49
U,000
17 ,000
20, 000
2),000
26,000
29, 000
to
to
to
to
to
to
17,000
20, 000
23,000
26 , 000
29.000
)2,000
31
16
17
1)
8
6
32 . 000
35 . 000
38,000
'1,000
'4,000
to 35,000
to 38,000
to Cl ,000
to «,000
to '7,000
and over
8
47 .ooo
•c• ...... . _ ...
Percent
6'5
,.a
2,5
2.6
2.0
1.2
0.9
1.2
0.5
0.8
0.2
0.5
2.0
)
5
1
)
13
I•-•' ...n,er.
r"t•n .., 41hpl.-:ed , .... ,,.
-..nt..,-, -••,..•• ... ,..,... aac-.1
•...,. • • nallellh r•r.,.. plMlaU-.
Table ))-NH INCOME FOR THE ONE-FOURTH OF THE PLt.NTATIONS IN HCff U[A WITH
THE HIGHEST ANO TIIE LIMEST NET INCOIIE PER Plt.NTUJOII,
193C
(Cotton Plantation Enu•erationl
--
Net I ncO'tle for One-fourth of
Plan tat, ans In Each Area with
Highest Net lncoae per
Nl.lnber of
PIM1t~
lions
Area
in Each
lncc,ae
GrOUI>
--
Total
Atlantic Coast Plain
Upper Pi edltiont
Block Bel I (At•
Block Belt IB)'
Upper Delta
le.er Delta
ll.sc le Shoals
Interior PJain
Mississippi Bluffs
Rm River
Arti.ansu River
........ ..,.,.,,,.
•c,...,.,. _, etHr
~.;,
lncOlla for One-fourth of
Plantation• in Each ArN with
l.oae•t Net I nccae per
Plant.1tion
Per
Plantation
-
Plantation
Per
Per
Pu
Per
Capita
Crop ,-ere
PJ-,tat ion
Capita
Per
Crop Acre
162
SU,010
S132
S20.,2
Sl , '9?
S 68
S 6.9C
""
lt,)70
6 , 788
6,,67
5,'15
25,7'7
199
148
112
1,227
1.65'
49
57
4.65
t0. 21
855
'8
,.oa
5~
lU
38.91
22 .21
1,. 73
16 . 2'3
23.69
2. 35'
69
87
2.07
10.~
9,577
5, ll60
1,. 35'
U ,201
20. 320
37.UO
120
135
1311
124
115
121
22.U
20.82
16.19
17.411
20.13
18.15
1,328
1, 79'
1."5
2.13'
5,!119
10
?11
2~
"
12
6
8
12
7
7
10(
2'I
.
111
M
17
1.9C
7 .911
11.97
10.58
85
7.SI
111
12.20
•ar• ,__. •j•rl ,, .
D1gt1zed
bye
ogle
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
217
T•ble 34-SIZE OF PL4 ~TATIO~S IN RELATION TO PLA NTATI ON
N[T
INCO VE, 193 4
(Cotton Plan t ,it ion Enu"'e,.at ion)
Croo ~c r-es oe r
Pl:tnta t i on
Tot al Acre s ~r
Plaint 3tion
Area
4.ve rage•
601
Total
785
431
785
8'0
1. 031
4t lan t ,c Co:ut Plain
,.,.
Uooe r P,eQrTIOn t
Bhck Sei t
~l,c , Seit 18) 0
Uo~r
°"It~
e,. O!l t a
1.1 46
555
1.160
186
901
1.122
lriluKle Shoals
Inte r ior Plain
V, ss , ssioo• Blu f fs
q~ q , ver
• ' ",."~S qi v e r
~ ,gh
Low
251<
25, •
4verage a
H19h
lo•
251'
251c
1. , ed
011
- --
385
686
215
5'>
106
27
591
925
395
41l2
1.0<0
294
211
275
255
563
292
306
4'1
263
162
187
42
57
46
52
52
119
25
29
18
B
35
544
1-,
I.
~20
2,031
2,328
714
2.848
I. 511
1. "<'.17
3. 324
4
730
510
I
) 91
31'6
557
1.0ll
207
225
523
378
531
998
■r e
:) "'• 1erw • 1 ,q11 1 iu • ,. . , . , , to ,,._ 15 ••rc e"t o t t,1e pl 1 11t1t•on s ,,, f'K"
111 ~ 111, t ,...,
10 ... 11
..... ,
,ri.c-.
11 1r
Low
f51c
636
33•
'!_ff;,
1.007
222
.. 4
212
1. l 9'i
81•
llQ
H
34
21
91
I
1 ,009
167
150
126
273
2 ,O<b
4'.,8
I
pl••H ■ t io " ,
1 51 " re r er t t o \I'l l" 15 ;, e rc•"l o t
iflCOO'!e , .~ ,1 . .. t -1 t ,c,r.,
P••
pl • " t • t1or.a ,,..
•-="'
11 rea
I
I
80
3'>
2'i
5,
57
I
77
143
42
142
11'>
176
300
5
12
27
20
25
•1
-----
~
M • ol • "t l ltOt\l.
c, ,_,. l e~ •
25,•
Hi gh
4ive r.,.ge'-'
~
I. 542
~
1
'11., flber of Persons
Der Pl.1n t ,t1on
-
• 11t1 ' " •
••l"
t..,.
d c,o, o e r a nd ot ,,., , ,..,. t a 'l.l t1 l - , or,tr .
•••filt e r
- ,o,,t , .
Table )5 - SP(CIALIZ AT IO N I N COTTON PRODUCTI ON I N RELATIO N TO PLA NTATI ON NET
INCO ME.
SY AREAS. 193 •
I Cot t on Pl l!ln l at ion Enumerat ionJ
Co tt on A.cre s per
Plan t a t ion
4 rea
Ave rag~
Total
At I an t ic Coast Pl a i n
U;,per Piect-non t
Black Seit
Slack Seit 1s1•
Upper Oelta
,.,.
L er De l ta
._,,cle Shoals
In t erio r PL~ , n
W,ssissippi Bluffs
R~ R,ve r
4rl..a nsas Ri ve r
•••uo
t>,,..
High
2si•
Perce nt age of Crop
land in Cott on
2~ c
A.verage•
High
25s"
Cot ton Acres
pe r Cao , ta
Low
25~
Average•
High
25,•
Low
25'1"
151
J06
56
J9. 4
u .s
26. 1
2. 77
2.81
2 .52
00
68
71
53
40
31
9
95
26.9
32.0
.13.6
20. 1
41 . 1
24 . 5
J6 . 3
25 .0
32 . 9
• 1. 5
20.2
24.8
16 . 7
J .•
U .7
1.90
2.01
1. 1!9
1.81
2.66
1. 24
2.40
l. 9J
2.09
2.88
2. lb
1.38
1. 14
1. 10
2. ~
2
JI
68
J6
125
219
J2.0
29. ~
4J.4
41. •
SJ.)
55 . 6
.u .,
1. 1
18.8
45 ,b
28 . 5
45 . 8
47 .1
1.93
2. 6'
J.91
2. 76
J.68
3 . ll9
.46
2 . 96
).SJ
3 . 31
J.1 2
4 .1 5
0 .40
2 .54
2 .4 8
65
49
265
61
61
227
157
28)
555
Ill
112
11 0
516
191
124
500
JW
550
1, 219
•5.4
41. 9
46 . 7
54 . 5
62 . 5
I. 77
• . 91
4 . 69
on 61 ♦ p l •"t a t lo,. , .
l,
t era • !I i i " n 1• re,.rs to'"•
pe rc e ,it of""' , 1.,.t a t lo"• 1,. •ac.11 •r•• • IUr, u1 • h , gfla tt
,,c c,-e oer pla11t a t l ol'I.
, • • Iara "Lo• .u, · r . ,. ,. lo , .. , l S pare •" ' ot U• p h, l'lleliOl'IS 11'1 ••CJI e r a, • Ith, ... 10 ... u ,... ,
di-c o-a Pe r plall\at l ol'I .
• Cro,"r •AG othe r 1M re t e 11an t . . ,c, rl t y .
c•• t
. . .. ,., U JOrt t 7.
Digitized by
Google
218 LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THB COTTON PLANTATION
Toei., )6-0P'lHTOII IU IICc.l II lllATIOII TO CAri TAl IIVlSTlD. 1Y AIIU.S, 11)4
ICotteft
lo•
I on J
"••t•t
l••••r•t
... ,.,..t ...
,,..,..-.i.
,._.. ,.,,-
o,.n,11,r•• C.,1-
fatal
Ana
.._,_
,
...
ti••
lthftUC 0..t Plain
\Jtiper Piedllont
11•0 9olt IAI•
Black Belt (Bl•
u.o,er Dalla
I.Oar Datta
•eel• ,r,o.la
l•t.,. iOf' Pla i n
.. i u i H i ,,i 81•ffa
Aid Riwer
~
Riv.,
~ - _. -•ll•N f • M
6)2
~.•1
!II
,.
1.o«I.UI
111
L!III~ . ..,
1.)72.6,IO
~6'2,)1)
9)
132
~1•.)00
•
87),7~
2;;
)18. !11)6
:,0
LJll~•79
.
;a
ll
-
a.t....
cr,.ntor• a
"'-·-- -- ,..,cent
Total
Total
If Qlerator
Is -ltra, 111
A l l - f..-
Operator••
let,_
"'•~:
... ,., $1.•
,...
,_,_
_, ....
Total
Ul.114 11.UI.D
12.~lti
9.0
7.2
,.,
11.rn
2.~,
1. 7)7
1.•74
w.,
11.1
,.o
··- .,.,,.
-·u.•1
11.•1
l). 2
8. 2
M.ll!O
1.M,!1117
l.)U
•2. 7'5
SM,4)2
),11117
9. 1
9.1
17.8)1
... ,11
11, lM
211 .. .
1. lat
1. J'()
,.1
1, .•
.1
...~•
21, 821
10.tY
1.00). 76)
J.11117
.0t,
60 , tiQI
lll.970
125,5)2
2. 21D.:,0:,
M,012
• • 21D
2• .!&~
2,.,.
•.'8J
7. 162
U.2
7.4
e.•
•••
~-•
, .1
1.,
..
.
~·•••
2.6
2.)
, l.t
,••• •••
fOI'
1-.lfllola
Art,ltnrll1
...
,_t
'
11511
1.!1111
Ni
.01
451
l,))2
4.1
618
4,0
2.1
- •ll
1, W
7.8
,.7
7.2
Lt
...-.al-.
•er....,. ...._. ...,.. ..,.. • ..,.,,.
~
-
2.061
c:-...r .,-n,.
Dig1t1zed by
Google
r
Taole 37-0PERATOII LABOR INCOME" PER CROP ACRE ANO PER ACRE VALUE Of LAND'
1934
(Cotton Plantation Enu11erat1onJ
en
c:::
labor lnccne
Per Crop 4c re
Total
575
Loas
S Z. 50
I.ass
Gain
Ga,n
Ga ,•
lesa t han
less than
S 2. 60 t o
S 5.00 to
Gain S 7. SO
Gain S10.00
Ga i n $12.50
Ga,n Sl5.00
cg·0
;;;<?>
Cl
Total Plantat ions
Rec,orl ln•i
kll'loer Percent
and o-v er
S 2. 50
S 2.50
S 5. 00
S 7. 50
t o S10.00
t o $12. !">0
to S.lS.00
and CN e r
Per Acre 'r'alue
Under $10
100.0
87
92
130
111
62
15. l
16. 0
22.6
19. ,
10.8
46
8.0
3,6
1.6
3. 1
20
9
18
55
Ac. r·~_.
525-0l
$)J-B5
$35-$40
MO ano o,.rer
I neon~
102
63
83
53
61
2,
135
$449 . 014
30
r
Tota l
Laoor
S20-525
10
13
1
1
Tot a l
SIS-S20
10
22
4
Lana .
S10-$15
8
11
4
at
7
9
17
16
20
9
6
9
1
l
7
9
10
11
6
5
2
5
4
4
1
I
l
(
-
-
8
12
19
21
12
-
•
5
7
19
5
7
9
2
4
l
4
- 217.941
- 46 . 660
64. 433
2
38
70
17
21
16
0
0
I
3
10
9
1
3
149 , 972
67. 337
35. 010
l
8
4
160 , 684
118. 215
117, 964
1
lnccne per
n Cr ops
Crop Acre
2ll, 26 1
\ 2.01
"ti
"ti
t""'
!.:,;I
X
tz:I
:z:
40, t 67
34. 989
54. 485
42.148
19, )90
- 5.~ 3
- 1. 33
1.18
3. 81
6.10
:;a
17 , 623
5.813
2. 679
5 , 957
B, 5 1
ll.ii6
13.07
19 . 80
t""'
~
>
><
~
>
ttl
ti;)
en
•Lalor iftC~ 11 ne1 •"Coa (caa,i a rid ri.-. 11• • ) le u t Jercant 011 c a,1tal i ffll'HINl'l t 11'1 l• "'d , h n l0 1r\tl ( . . c l ...CS l 119 o,e rato r•• r n1d e .11C o , q 411 1, ,u d coia-, ,1 1 11,ri aa) ,
ao1•l1, MIO • ct1 lfta r , , l l'l..-.rat • r• ••r• 11u lr 11c t .cl t o •an11r w1lua1 at co111arwa tlw e . . r1ie t wa l 11 • • no t la- aa• • • • ed w•l 11e or 11 ,9 111 s11ec:11 la 1 ,we we l 111e.•
'L•M '" c rop•. UI l &eh lallld id le, ...
1111,.
le,ut .
•ood•
IIOI , • ••
.,. ,.d, •"4 ·••le
lano .
, .. ta 11101 ewa j1a'1 a for 71 , 1atttat ICN1s ; r o r 1) plant at 1011 1 operat o ,- • labor UK~ dau n• t awa , l a Dle t ee•••• wat111e o f ra nted aftd o■ roe(I l a lld no t Hparatadt
f o t II ph ntat iOftl • ., ac r e •• 1.,.• • , hllCI data ftO t ava i lat l• l)eC&111•• o,- r at o r 1 Jtad I\O lftW ■ l t-•t ... laflld ,
cr
'<
C')
0
a.....
fc;
l'J
.....
<D
~
0
t""'
►
:z
0
t""'
0
:,c
0
Tobie 3B-NET I NCOIIE BY TENURE STATUS,
BY AREAS, 193'
►
:z:
{Cotton Plantation Enllner&tion)
0
Total
Area
Total
At I antic Coast Plain
Upper Piedmont
Slack Belt (Al"
Black Belt (81°
Upper Del ta
Lo""r Del ta
Wuscle Shoals
Interior Plain
0
'[a°
.s?"
C;
0
~
~
Mississippi Bluffs
Red River
Arkansas River
Total
Net I ,1come
Fdlli lies
Per
Repart in~•
Fami 1y
5, r83
5309
,01
,1 I
326
311
256
33q
245
75'
679
1.328
346
130
227
397
225
355
re■ il1e,
Net Income
Totdl
Other Shdre Tenants
Net I ncOl'l'le
F',!l'l'ld ,es
Report Ing
Per
F..,,;..i,
Per
Capita
Report, ng
Per
Fami1y
Per
Total
FNT11 I ie~
Capita
Reporting
S73
865
$!AO
$62
2,873
$312
$71
84
15'
53
175
174
103
199
153
15/i
175
202
58
212
12'
519
336
334
A7
66
66
267
'\I)
qz
232
923
323
15'
3,a
31'
,9
76
61
61
"6
66
69
29
76
205
170
70
173
195
213
136
6A
89
16
26
7
37
71
Per
Ca.pi ta
199
406
371
269
321
245
•o.u ••r• not aYailabl• tor JI t1•illes, il\Cluo,ng
0
cro,ip■ r and ot~r s11ar• ttnant ■eJori t7,
chnt,r ..,Jority,
Croppers
Wage Hands
73
67
5'
BR
'7
91
A3
or 2
•ag■ n■ ndt,
1J
,roop■ ,.,,
Total
6A
52
56
Fami I ies
,o,
I 72
257
125
259
235
305
243
11 ot~r '"""• ten&nU, aftd J r1nt1r,.
Net I ncOffle
Per
Total
F..,,, J ies
Reporting
r:;,;i
:z:
Net Income
Per
ly
Per
Ca.pi ta
Per
F~dy
Cd.pi La
705
5'17
S 92
650
$35'
$ 71
16
833
137
A2
6,
25
16
113
250
30
536
119
109
,11
289
561
57
146
1,5
29
234
5'7
IOI
52
'40
82
62
23
272
313
40A
,16
38
1,
,~'9
217
52
4q4
Ii)(
114
74
,a
60
61
29
47
A3
75
..,
Renters
5.C6
364
700
290
63
100
'30
!'7
A7
-
,2
-
-
Far,,1
'"
419
-
83
50
Al
--
►
..,z
0
..,z
=
I;,;!
C')
0
o-i
o-i
0
:z:
.,,t""'
..,z
..,
►
►
"'"4
0
z:
SUPPLEM E~ TARY TAB LES
To b i e J9 -
Cq OP P[ P ~ •D OIH [ R SH~ R[
P[ R ~CR[
o,
T[ • A, r
4ll PLOT4T 1Q,
'i[T
B1 '-L L[
l •CO • E.
LAND. '
14
l
(Co t t o n P l~ n t d t ,o n £. n u 'ft P f l t ion)
E1
r r,, ~~ rs
To t d i
'./., 1u~
,.,
!.e r ,.
-,
l1vr,.~
'lf"'l
Tnt i.1 1
,'., , .• •
.-ll.
15
>ll
to
lo
to
5
.o
,s
lo
to
to
; 1.
;,
,n I
;o
,,
2 7~
) 67
JO
35
318
32•
,o
""d O\l @r
.f, l)
• • 11 la~ .
2 .~
I
i "i •"' · !~l"'
i l.
:cs·
?9'!
zos
S~. • l8
?10
139: ;~
74 . 17 i
l U. J ll
J7
277
'"
195
,~2
3A9
313
1rPJ . .s .
• 9. 1n ..
11)) . )~?
)55
163
1'!1,8.◄ 3
l l"
347
361
356
] ':>1
i!9. 505
J4l
1'10
60 . • ll
776
24 7, 794
n~
112 . 9 1•
ll?, 421
BA ,801
985
350 . 465
~l
T,r
lor
01
) 5
.?~ oil
7.?1
• 5~
61
'.t , 11'1!
?J. c;,~
• l7
V?
209
] • Oi6 _
102. el l
4 ,f,
.1 a1
ss
319
!H
3,t }
J ,t .
,,
n•
'1,•r>;;~
3. ~..
~ ~ ' ~ J I:
75
54
;3 r
.----
1
11 . 1'7
"
l:!-l
,,
,,.
-.~,
ot d
•.. ,. r11 ~
i:; •,;;
,.,
l
j
~'
'• IT't; • r
•N, I
4ve---~]t-
lJl< I
1
1J1t1•t
,,,,.,._
•l~t
~ i,r t:i,,. r
I
d
- ,----:-Sl. 197.
l HJ
To t
LPSS, t h 4n
I
c rop, • •• •"~• . -ood1 not pa11wre d , and -. ue.
• , iw: l lide s J•l , .-11 1~, "'"d l 11 , i.vt • d ; ewc l 1td• 1 11 f s,,, i 1 i • • r o, "" ' (• d a t11 .. ,. 1'1-0I . .. ,.,l11 tl e ,
c , 1111t l.,de ,- U 1t . l)l 1'l'Wl f 1t r l h ted.
11
1111C l.-d•1 )11 r I l l e , •11d , ■ tr lrui1tN , e.-cJ..,d• • , r a ,. ll l e 1 ro, • "'IC"' oat 11 •ere no 1 "'"' a l! a t l l'.
•1"'(J 114e 1 Ut , 1 11 ..,nch 1t rl •wted .
f" IACI ..Oe1 t O , _ .i l e1 1111<!,1,t rl Dv te f , ••<l11de 1 II , _ il i e 1 ro r -,, ;c,, dat a . . , 11 not a ... ,o1ao1 •.
l 111Cl 1i1fe1 1 1'. )fCI 11ftdi ttr 1h ted .
.- C; -
Ttr) l !'
.ir. [ 1
t frrl (Olif (
o,
PLA IIII T AT I 0 "1 F"AM I l. I ( S ,
BY 1 1111 CQtr,t (
I Co t \ o., Pl ar, t " , on
,.,~
-
I
'"""
• U
,
1a. "_1
;~,..,•:n
lo '5'5
-- 1 J,~
Pr o J!.,,: t , on
I Lo s :!. I .j,a ,,, I.__.._"' " ~•"
I l us
I lift,; "
1
1rit, 1
) . J)
'\<;1 n.-~
I, ...
$ .
, ...
lo
'"' ,.
to
ft()
r,
. ...,n 'rll!"
..,.
,,.
>-' \,;
1, 11;
,o
...
a. e ll • • t•
>JU
;1:
1) ,
lj j
'~I
t:} ~
""
.,,..
bc.,
W)
•)
IB /
7)
1'0
ll~
.,
'""
11.S
1,
ii;
J
1B
,,,
1B l
7l •
f c:, ;
.w
,t ::()
;,,I
l SO
, I
:,1 ,
'H!\
8
,,1.,
~,~0-
l;I
1L~u
! <O
16(/
18(•
; 11,
1:.• L•
,;
I
I
-'" ' "
J .:\JU-
J(,'5
to
"" to
o.., ~,
lJ
....
,,,
• JJ
l •l to
It,c; lo
I
to
<00 , ~,
"°
=I
••
US[
pij QDU C T I ON,
l ')J I
---,-------
'"""""
~ l ~i()--
6d
◄IJJ
100
""
1
~,~
.
~lUIJ-
i '.>U-
.... I '"""
I '"'"
luJ I
) ':,J
u.J ,.._
0...e r
FRO tr,t HOM[
[n u~f!: r .it , o n)
11
49
.,
/ ~)
,.,
6'l
••
)7
10
101
6,
••
.,
•O
"'
i,
~l
l)
a;
1
,!I
.....,,.
~,,,._
,.,.,_
.,,)...t... -
•w ""'
I
;<o
-~,,
d
,;
.,
9,
,,cj;
ol
DJ
w,
...~1 •,lf'I
'.',;'!, .,
o.A,
1/
.
J)
5o
:,;
.,.
M
,n •J
/Jv"'
'"' "''
,2
17
)~J- ,,..,)(;~,., ..,
lU
i,
'-"
J> ,
I" <~
,,,,
i .r4
I
JO
177
21;
B
1l
, ;.
ll
.,.
.,
1'
JI
1.0
Jjij
J7ij
LJ
:a
"''
"''
,1,
1J9
Ml
; 30
lo
11
JI • l • • t • Llo,, , . 11 ,.,, .
D1gl'zed by
Google
~
(\)
t:"'"'
>
z
0
t:"'"'
0
::,,
0
Table 41-CROPPER ANO OTHER SHARE TENANT NET INCOME• PER FAMILY, BY OPERATOR LABOR INCOME PER CROP ACRE. 193•
>
(Cotton P1antat ion Enul'tlerat ion I
z
0
Plantait ions
Report i ngb
lncane per
Family
Total
300 to ,oo
•OO to 500
500 and 0ver
•c.o
0
<.O
~
[
.s?"
Tot!l
Loss
Loss
Gain
52 .50 Less
Less
Thon
and
Th,1n
Gain
Gain
Gain
S2.50 - S5.00
$5.00 - $7 .'!O
Nuni>er
Percent
5'6
100.0
7'
6'
122
117
37
39
99
8
18
13
3
9
II
8
9
88
6,8
7 .2
18.I
16.1
25
20
8
7
22
25
135
70
78
2,. 7
12 .8
1'.3
S 50 to S150
150 to 200
200 to 250
250 to 300
alld " • • UM.
Total Cropper
Operator labor lncone per C;-op Acre
Total
Tef'l~nt Net
Over S2.50
•
17
•
10
22
6
5
$2.50
9
2•
19
16
Gain
$7.50 - $10.00
Gain
Sl~.00
$10.00 - S12 .50 Sl2.50 - Sl~.00 and
Gain
Net
Inc-
Over
28
17
10
72
7
•
'8
20
-
1
I
2
5
7
5
10
13
19
13
6
15
3
13
•at•
b,1an1ations operated entirely •itll rent e rs and plantation• o,eratltd ernirely •iO Mn-re1idet1t
h .. ds are •iUef;
I• addition lJ plaMationa are oaiithd De<&UH wa1ue o, OWied a,id r-,ited 11111d cowld not ()e H11arated.
~
5
••
12
-
•3
2
3
17
I
-1
2
2
11
\2,1'0,770
29,8'3
77
.9?•
323.8'9
310,889
611,'17
376,913
•09.935
and Other
Sh.ue Tenant
F'ami I ies on
Planut i ans
Report i na
6,511
236
,20
1.'.ffl
1,123
I.BIO
9111
931
>-,I
Average
t.et InCCffle per
F51li ly
$329
126
186
n•
277
338
'15
650
CXl
z
>
z
...,
0
z;
>-,I
::r:
CXl
("')
...,
0
>-,I
0
z
'"ti
t:"'"'
>
z
>-,I
C;
...,>
0
0
~
~
~
z
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
Table 42-VALUE OF
FARM
223
DWELLINGS IN SEVEN SOUTHEASTERN COTTON STATES
AS COMPARED TO GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS, 1930
Median Value
Division
and State
Mean Value
(All D,,ell ings)
Farms Operated
Farm., Operated
by Tenants
by Owners
I nc 1ud i ng Manage rs
$1,126
$1.135
$ 472
2,218
2,237
1,657
1,559
783
1,832
1,986
1,539
1,521
782
1,613
2,058
1,510
1,247
374
1,617
512
711
806
1,414
314
361
682
952
Seven cotton States
467
555
315
Alabane
Arkan.5llls
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
408
391
483
U7
377
653
519
499
495
617
5,10
472
700
605
297
301
332
293
291
417
320
United States
11N England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
'#est Nert h Cent ra 1
South At lanUc
East South Centro I
West South Central
.
503
584
Mountain
Pacific
989
North Carolina
South Carol i na
Table 43-FARM
HOUSES SURVEYED&
IN
SEVEN SOUTHEASTERN COTTON STATES, 1934
Total
White
Negro
State
Owners
Ten.tints
Total
D.ners
Tenants
Total
O.Oers
Tenants
Seven cotton States
61. 238
107, '146
106,179
51,042
55,137
63,005
10,196
52,809
Alab_,
8,138
7,837
10,946
6,055
7,616
12,932
7,714
16,644
12. 528
24,058
10, J-48
16,300
13,553
21. 590
10,333
11.080
19,657
13,666
6,702
6,613
8,787
5,354
5,947
11.288
6,351
9,598
6,940
12.803
4,979
5,133
8,369
7,315
8,482
6,812
13,414
6,070
10,900
8,548
8,779
1.436
1.224
2,159
701
1,669
1,644
1. 363
7,046
5,588
11,255
5, 35q
9,231
6,904
7,416
Arkansas
G@org ia
Louisiana
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
14,364
15,273
14,731
a,,,, •• 1.,.1, 10 ,.,, ... , of •II ,.,.. I• .... H•I• . , . Incl.._ 111 , ... SIIIN•J•
SOurce:
~:~oo"::~!~o!"~:, ~rv~rr:::1i:'.:::I~~~~!:~•
I, S.
Dapart.. nt
of
A9rlolhr•,
Dig ii Zed by
Goog [e
224
LANDLORD AND TEN~NT ON THE COTTON PL~NTATION
Table 44-PERCEIT OISTRIBUTIDI OF FARII HOUSES SURVEYED IN SEVEN SOUTIIEASTERI
COTTOI STATES, BY TYPE OF HOUSE AND BY COLOR
AND TENURE OF OCCUPANTS, 1934
,.,cent
State
Total
<loners
lhite
Tenants
Tola!
Negro
Owners
Total
Tenants
-
Ooners
T-ts
I.Of
,,_
s.,,., cotton Slatn
Ar11ansas
Geo,via
lauisi1n1
Mississippi
lorth C.ro I i na
Sauth C.rol i na
3,4
3.5
4.8
5.4
3.3
2.3
3.5
3.3
l.9
6.6
3.5
3.1
1.2
2.6
).8
?.4
3.8
5.9
5.5
3.6
1.8
3.1
3.7
2.2
3.4
4.2
5.8
3.3
2.1
3,2
3-2
1.9
•
•a
•
-
-
4.2
7.0
5.1
3.9
1.4
3.0
4.4
2.5
2.9
6.2
1.9
2.3
1.3
2.8
3,4
2.3
4.1
2.7
7.3
3.2
3.2
3-4
4.8
4,5
2.1
6.0
1.6
2.2
1.1
2.4
3.1
2.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
•
0.2
0.4
1.1
-
•
•0.5
86.6
86.9
89.1
89.1
91.8
88.4
74.8
86.3
80.5
77.2
83.1
84.6
80.8
Bi'.5
73.4
81.0
87.7
10.3
6.9
9.0
8.6
6.9
R.5
21.5
10.9
15.0
15.4
13.3
12.2
15.8
11.5
•
•
•
•
•
•
0.1
•
0.1
lorl/l
s.,,., cotton Slatn
AlArbnsas
Georgia
-•-
a
•
•
0.1
-
•
UIUisiana
Mississippi
0.3
North Caro I i na
South Carolina
0.1
•
•
0.2
-
•
-
0.1
0.1
•
0.1
•-
•
•
•
•
•0.2
•
•
•
,,._ /onpaln&edl
Seven cot ton States
Allb'"""
Arkansas
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
llorth Carolina
Sauth Carolina
'i6.5
56.1
51.4
58.5
62.7
6~.2
48.9
57.6
19.5
80.1
77 .2
80.7
87.5
86.2
67.6
79.1
67.0
64.6
56.2
64.3
70.5
69.~
52 .1
62.4
51.6
51.6
45.5
52.1
60.3
60.3
4~.3
52 .5
71.5
73. 7
66.~
77.6
81.3
80.0
61.5
70.1
88.9
90.4
89.9
9"i.O
89.6
75.2
87.3
,,._ (painted/
··-
Seven cotton States
)!I.I
16.8
n.?
38.6
41.8
37.7
l-1.9
10.2
Arkansas
<ieorgia
Louisiana
l!fississippl
llorth C.rol ina
Sauth C.ro I i Ill
19.e
16.1
11.2
,1.0
l8.0
18.0
4~>.9
39.5
11.~
41.9
2'!.2
37 .2
31.7
27 .6
26.6
42.6
34. 7
4'3.6
,,_
0.1
Arkans■s
•
0.2
Georgia
0.1
•
L:luisiana
Mississippi
lorth C.rollne
Sauth C.rolina
.,_
·-Goo,via
Louisiana
Mississippi
lorth C.rol Ina
South Carol Ina
LeH &Na I.II
Nllfee:
0.1
a
0.1
a
0.1
0.1
0.2
a
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.6
•
0.9
0.6
1.4
0.5
0.1
0. 7
1.3
1.8
•
•
•
0.1
•
0.2
•
•
llrlct.
S.V.. cotton Statn
•
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.8
0.5
1.2
0.4
0.1
0.6
1.6
0.8
11..8
16.6
9.4
5.1
8.0
7.9
5.7
0.0
21.4
9.8
,,._ /1&acco/
I
s.,,., cat ton States
47.1
43.9
37 .4
~-6
49.4
U.5
23.9
19.1
27.9
73.4
17. I
16.3
33.3
26.3
•
0.7
•
•
sion•. -
1.0
•
0.1
•
•
•
•
-
•
•
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
-
•
•
eonc... ,.
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.1
•
•
••
•
••
0.1
0.2
0.1
••
•
0.1
•
0.2
0.1
"rc..c.
,.,. ._., .. ......, a., ..,... •' .... tc.... iu. •• 1 . . . ..,., .... , er
i1rlc•11.,... le ce.,araU• ■In Civil •ru ,_hlatr■tlM.
Dig t1zed by
Goog IC
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
225
Table •5-NUIIBER OF ROOIIS PER FARt,1 HOUSE SURVEYED IN SEVEN SOUTHEASTERN COTTO~ 5UTE5.
BY COLOR AND TENURE OF OCCUPANTS, 193•
N<Jrnber of Rooms per liouse Surveyed
State
Total
0.ners
Negro
White
TeM.nts
Total
Owners
Tenants
Tot.11
Seven cot ton St3tes
5.2
•. o
4.8
5.3
4.3
3,8
ll 'lbama
~rlianSdS
GPorg i~
•• 9
4.5
5.1
5.0
5.0
5.8
5. 7
3.6
3.8
4 .1
3.6
3.5
4 .•
•. 2
•• 8
•. 5
4 .6
5 .•
5. 3
5.0
•. 6
5.3
5.1
5.3
5.8
5.9
4.0
3.9
4 .4
3.9
3.9
•. 9
3-•
3. 7
3. 7
3.5
3.•
4. 3
•.3
Louisiana
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carol in.a
• .5
• .5
'. 7
CM-ners
Ter\]nts
4 ;4
3.6
•. o
3.2
3. 7
3.6
3.4
3. 3
I.I
4 .2
3.9
•. 1
4.6
•. 2
5.1
•. 8
,.,,. 1110u1lng su,.,,•, Dy lurea1.1 o' ~ lConOflliCI, v. S. Depart-flt of •~ricvlture,
in cooperation •ill\ Civll Mr.Ila Ad•inlstration.
Sourc•:
Tab I e •6-0CCUPANTS PER ROOM. IN FARM HOUSES IN SEVEN SOUTHEASTERN COTTON STlTES,
BY COLOR ANO TENURE OF OCCUPANTS, 19~4
NI.Aber of Regular Occup.!lnts per Room
State
Total
Mii le
Owners
Tenants
Total
Owners
Seven cotton Sutes
0.95
1.30
1.05
0.90
A.l-!b~
1.00
0.98
0.95
0.98
0.96
0.88
0.90
t.•9
1.29
1.30
1.33
1.19
1.15
1.00
1.05
1.10
t.O•
0.94
1.02
0.97
0.9~
0.90
0.96
0.89
0.85
0.85
Arkansas
Georgia
Louisiana
Wi ssi ssi ppi
horth C~rol in:t
South Ural ina
lollrce:
1.23
1.27
Negro
Total
Owners
Ten-!nts
1.21
1.37
1.22
1.U
1.30
1.25
1.19
1.30
1.27
1.09
1.19
1. 72
1.31
1.•3
1.33
1.15
1.38
f.33
1.36
1.18
1.2~
1.16
1.23
1.14
1.81
1.34
Tenants
1.18
rar. •owsin'J 51,1,.ver or lw,.••w of Mo,ae [conoa,ca U. s. 1e,art ■ en1 of
19riculll;re, in co.:,peratlon •llJI Ciwil lfOrllla AdalnlatratiOfl.
!.H
1.36
1. 13
1.•5
I. 37
----
Tobie 47-BEOROOIIS ANO OTHER ROOMS PER FARM HOUSE SURVEYED IN SEVEN SOUTHEASTERN
COTTON STATES, BY COLOR ANO TENURE OF OCCUPANTS, 1934
Toul
M,ite
Negro
State
Owners
Tenants
Tota.il
Owners
Tenants
.ltua.ber of Bedroo.s per
Seveti cot ton States
2.9
2,3
2. 7
2.9
2.4
2.8
2. 5
9
2. 7
?.9
3 .2
3.1
2 .2
1.9
2.4
2.1
2.0
2 .5
2 .2
2.8
2 .6
2 .6
2.9
2.9
2.8
7.4
3.0
?• 7
?. 3
2 .0
2 .6
2.3
2.3
7.6
7. 7
Mississippi
korth Carolina
South Carol in;s
z.
2.5
z. 7
7.9
3.2
3.7
D.ners
Te-n~nt5
2.6
?•t
7.0
1.8
2.?
louse 9'rv•11•d
Al~bNT\'I
Ari,,;Jtns1s
Georg id
loui s i 1na,
Tot ,I
7. 7
? .t
2. 5
t.9
2.3
7. 3
2 .6
2.8
2.6
2. 7
2.8
2.0
2.0
2.4
2. 7
lua.ber of Rao11a Other than Bedr009s ,,.r IOMs• SUrveved
Seven cot ton States
Alab,ona
Arkinsas
Georgia
Louisiana:
\liss15sippi
North <Arol ina
South Carolina
Source:
2 .3
7. t
2.0
2 .2
2.3
2. t
2.6
2.6
1.7
2. t
2 ••
1.9
1.6
1.•
1.9
t. 7
1.~
t.5
2.0
1.8
1.9
2 .0
2 .o
1.9
2.0
2 .5
2.•
2 .7
2 .2
2 .3
7.4
t. 7
t.3
1.8
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.9
1.6
7.•
2.6
2. 7
1.9
1.8
1.6
1. ;
2. 3
?.O
ra"" "ousing !,urv~, o, lwreau of Mo- Econo•1ca. u. l. Depart•ent of Agr,cullwre,
in coo,erat1on •iln Civil 11110r~• AOlliin,Ur•tion.
1.e
1.S
1.6
t.5
i.e
1.6
2 ,4
2.0
t. q
t.9
? ·'
2.1
l.
1.7
t. 9
1.,
(.S
1.,
l:~_
226
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
T■"■
48-P£RCENT Of FARII HOUSES SURVEYED IITN SCIEEIS II SEVEN SOUTHEAST[H
COTTON STAT£S, IY COLOR ANO T£IHIIIE Of OCCUPHTS, 111)4
'■ rcent
State
s.v.. cotton
,1_
States
Arltansu
Ciaorgia
t.a..isiana
llliuissippi
lorth Carolina
South Carol i na
Total
lhite
Negro
o..ers
TeflaRtS
Total
Oonen
Tenants
Total
Owners
Tenants
60.11
30.2
55.3
68.0
43.4
17.11
25.2
16.6
59. 7
76.0
50.J
55.3
63.2
26.1
59.1
21.0
30.8
29. 7
3).7
22.1
51.8
76.0
43.8
53. 7
!13.6
59.8
49.2
68.6
80. 7
39.7
!ill.6
32.9
47.5
41.1
47.1
34. 7
9.4
44.8
8.2
16. 2
23.8
18.0
50.8
12.6
2). 7
25.9
32.7
20.5
7,5
43.5
7.4
15.J
6'.6
57.9
59.4
73.7
9.2
65.9
n.1
20.3
11.4
Dig1
Z,.4
17.5
11. 7
zedbyGoogle
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
227
Tobie 49-P[RCEU OISTIIIIUTION OF FAl!II HOUSES SURVEYED I N SE VEN SOUTHEASTER N COTTON
STATES, BT SOURCE OF HTER, BY CO LOR AND TEN URE OF OCCU PANTS, 1934
Pe rcent
Sute
Total
0.-..
Neg ro
Wh ite
Tenan ts
Totol
011rne r s
Tenants
Tota l
Owners
25.J
6.J
SJ.5
1,.8
19. 7
3.0
)7. 7
19. 0
13.3
19.,
31.1
12.3
Tenant$
li• II . Dr tll ed Or" Dr t ucn
Sewn a,\ ton States
20.3
Al•lri<ansu
Georgia
low is i.-.a
15.6
)4.6
15.J
29.4
Ul.2
19. 7
16.0
Mi ss i ss i pp i
North Carolina
South Carol ina
n. J
lt. 3
'6. 7
12. 8
30. 8
)(. 9
28. 6
10. J
20.,
20. 4
20. )
16. 0
)8. 2
12. 8
31 . ,
lR. J
20. 3
13. J
18.3
3,.0
1,.3
Jt.5
t 5.J
1~. I
16.9
1'. 4
,2. 1
ll . 7
J1.J
21. 9
n.,
10. 1
111.,
)8. 6
3,.1
10. 7
26. 4
6.9
56. 9
1, .0
~-J
, 2. 1
3(. 8
10. ,
lioll , flat or Bo r ed
Seven cot tan Sutes
AlAnansu
Georgia
6).7
57. 9
78.4
42.J
70. J
lll. 2
71.3
n. 1
:JI-•
7' . 6
lou i si_,.
Mi ssi ssippi
54.!I
50.2
6-1.8
56. 5
74.1
6J. J
75.J
North Carol Ina
South Carolina
1111.4
56.9
75.l
47. 2
4). 6
5). 8
n. 1
Seven cotton Stat•
10.6
9.9
10.2
7.3
11. 1
6.9
9.7
4.8
6. 9
14. 7
13, 1
6.8
10.5
9.4
1.2
5.6
22.4
7.9
3,8
5. 9
0.8
12.0
J.2
27.6
8.J
O.J
0.1
AlArt..nws
Georg i •
Louis iana
Miss i ssippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Se.en cotton Sutes
Al.Ark<SIMS
Geor~ ia
Lou is i •na
Mi ss iss i pp i
llorth Carol i na
South Carol ina
9.11
9.2
1.9
6.7
n.,
e.e
5.9
1.1
12.5
2.7
25..5
8.2
O.J
0.1
0.7
6,J
2.1
18. 7
4. 8
0. 1
•
6-1.6
79. 8
42. 7
7). 3
53 . 2
70. 1
58.1
75. J
112 . 1
10.4
,.8
10. 7
9.6
1.J
4. 7
24.J
5.5
9.9
8.2
10.4
9.J
1.2
..rt.,
n .2
)(.,
75. 5
(6 .9
58.6
S..4
73.1
e.e
19.8
10.0
c,.,...
6.5
0.9
1'.2
). I
27.9
8.,
0.3
0.1
5.4
0.8
9.9
J.J
17.2
B. J
0.2
•
S. . 6
611. (
2, . 0
67. J
49. 9
)8. 0
52. 2
71. 6
10.2
U.7
J.O
9.7
7.9
8.1
10.2
15.5
2. 2
0.9
2.0
0.9
10.,
J.6
59.6
n.J
40. J
62. 7
611. 2
5J . J
49. J
74.J
1L9
19. J
4.9
7. 5
6.4
ll, 8
16. 7
tt. 8
2. 7
2.J
).I
1, 3
7.6
7. 5
0.1
--
1.1
0. 7
0.9
0. 3
5.0
0.8
0.4
0. 8
0.8
•
53 . 6
67.6
20.4
611.1
47. 5
35. J
53.0
71.1
9.9
15.0
2. 6
10.1
8.1
7. 1
8.6
16. 2
2. 0
0.6
1. 7
O. R
10.7
2. 8
0.1
•
Strea
Seven cotton sutes
0.6
lla-
O.J
Arkansas
0.1
0.5
0.1
Georg ia
lou, s iana
Miss issippi
o.e
North Carolina
South Carolina
0.7
1. 1
0. 9
0.6
0.9
0, 5
J.2
0. 7
0.5
0.8
0.7
o.,
0.8
0.6
o. 7
0.6
0. 7
1.0
0.6
O.J
0.5
0.5
0. J
0.5
0.8
1.2
0. 7
0. 5
I.I
o. 7
1. 1
0 .6
0. 6
0.8
Dig II.Pd oy
0. 3
1. 7
0 .1
) .I
1. 0
0.1
o. 7
1.1
0.8
0. 7
o.,
5.2
0. 7
0. 5
0. 9
Goos [e
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
228
TJble SO-PrRCrNT DIST•IA1lTI CN Of HRII HOUS E~ S 0 1RV[Y£u IN :;f.V(N SOUIHfASTlRS
H'r TYPl 0 .. ~h N/TAh'Y f/1.CILl l l f ') ,
COTT -.'.M S TAH L
8Y CO LOR .-u TEN UR[ OF OCCUPUTS,
1 Q14
-•-- "- -----------=---~
_l _____
S t 1te
f:hth•
-
---T - -
o.;:;-~•-j '-;:n,,,t, _ To~~~..... ~, j re~~-'-' 1 ~_!I_
O•JltMJOr f\lll tH
>t.-~~n
Al
C\Jl
ton StJlc~
<tl..ifJ, 1
Arlo,m, ,1s.
ftt..-or':-1, ..1
Luu, ::,1dn, i
u' ~.'
111.:1
Cuol
111J
P. ~
'·)
:,. 4
n
~- 0
2• •
1. 7
_., _ ~
I.'
1
7 .~
t~.tl
1.1
14. 1
1. R
'·o. ,
f.4
l
~-
,..
1. n
O, A
lA .O
l(\i
I. l
17, 0
7. 1
1. 1
11.1
'.6
l
<
7
fS. 7
S7
A.I
f,f,_
7
fiiS . '
c..1. .,
.:,t111ru
Aricsn::, .1::,
·'
~Q -
r1
·-'
1,. 7
1. 7
F, ~ .
~.,..6
4':.- .•
",O_ ~
f. .1 .6
fi ~•- 0
7"" ·0
c·.O
~, .r,
,,1 A
71: . 1
r-..1. !
72 , 1
,4 . 1
6°.1'
1. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0.1
0 .•
o. ,
o. 7
n.1
n.1
n. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0.1
a. 1
0.1
o. 1
7Q. 7
Al .5
Fi~. 7
7JJI
0. 1
0.1
~.1
M, !3!:J I ::,::, ippi
o. l
)outh Carol ind
n.1
fiO. :'-
~4. 7
fl~ .
7
~C:.. fi
7"' .?
9.?
:i1 . q
71.1
l; A. • ."1
5-t. I')
71. a
',(. a
7 f, 7
5-1.4
f,(l.6
Tot'"'
0. 1
0. 1
n. z
0. 1
0.1
n.1
1 .?
.
n. 1
9. _.,
1. :1
('l.l
0.?
0. !
1. 7
n.'
o. :
o,
4.2
1. 5
l. 1
0. 1
0. 1
n.1
o.z
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0.1
Ark ,v,.,15,
G,cc, r'1, ,t
·Nor th C·t 1ol
1nd
,. 1
Sout h C.srol
1nd
~.4
' .?
1. Q
n.n
Al ,::io .. 11a
]}. 0
i\r"i.-111 ::, .l::,
n.r)
n.,
Gcvr,j ld
Lo u1 S. 1 11u
"A, :,::, i s::, i c:.pi
1) .1
7
0. 7
n. 1
70. l
St:•en cut ton St,1te::,
14. l
Tl.?
?4.A
1?. R
10. 5
70, 1
1n. 1
N<.,nh Cnul
1nc1
10. 4
27 .,
s~) uth C.1rol
Hl,i
} 4. 1
IA.,
J<>wr(f' :
1
o. 1
1.n
tr~n
7 1.
({;h tt•lr a l I
o. 1
•Lrai,
~
7P..
70 . ?
Al 1t...vn.-1
Luu , ::, 1 d11;1
"1.0
RO.'t
~
Sc -., e n cut ton St..tte:,
.,, ~::,1 ::,!i, 1pp1
7
4.' -~
!('.
0.1
1n.1
'for th (Jrol
""·
r-.F-.1
Al ,tbcYl-..J
::, 1,:111.-t
"'·'
67 .)
fi~.?
71.?
~1.1
I nrJoor
Arl... 1n~::,
•
liA.O
f 7. ~
Lo w•
0.6
fiA. 1:
67. 1
R0,0
Gt.•or ·:,aid
1. 7
66.fi
f.':. 7
St! vcn cotton Sl«tle::,
,. 1
~ -('
62. 0
fi6. l
Lvu
Mi ::,-, ,::, Cl, 1pp 1
Nurtt , ( Mui I 11,1
Sou tt, C.1ro l I lld
f .<
a• 7
67. 1
:.Ci..H~ld
1::, 1,tn.1
' '·
'·
Q
1"ollet U,rzf•µru vedJ
o,,tJoor
S1:vt!n cot ton 5tdte::i
":""'' '-' '---:.
:..,;;,. :-_~;:r;;,"'
- J'~..~1
(Ja1,n.J 1i,e ,1}
s.1
1·.
?.•
PP I
>:) I
Nor th C.1r o l
<;.Ju l h
1. 7
5. 4
~- t
~lrrle:J~il
o. o~ percto11t.
0
r 11 r• lkH1<1inq s.vr .. e-, ll p 8uf!:l. W !' "''"•
(er""'''"' "·
u . S.
Pf"r1,. n•rnt of Aqr i cwlt .. ,r.
,n cuor rr ,11 , on e ,tn
(i.- i l lkir lo s Adoau\1 .Ura l i on.
Dig l,zea by
Google
SUPPLEMENTARY T1 BLES
Table 51-PERCEN T DIS TRIBUT IO N OF FARII HOUil: S SUR Y[ Y[O
CO TTON S TATES . BY TYPE OF
229
1•
SEVE~ SQU TH E4S TERN
coo, 1NG F4 C ILIT I F.S,
BY CO LOR AN D TENURE OF OCC UPA~I S , 19 3•
- -----=c:.-===------_-_
State
-
Total
Owners
f ~ant s
-
i-- ---..,-g-,o-
Ai?rc en t
Nh ite
fo t <ll
l ~ l TP n t nt s
Jio'ou,t or G(J
li
f
ot 1I
'J,Jt~ ~
9':, .6
93. 7
95. 7
9-l . i
% .t.
1. •
il6 . 5
94 , 4
• 1. l
95. •
96 . I
9', . ;
01. 7
96.,;
',-: , /
<M. 6
Loui si ana
Mississ i pp i
North Carol i,u
96 . 0
97 . l
91. l
!JJ.2
93 . 1
90 . 0
South Carolina
96 . 5
9 7. 4
97 . l
96 . l
98 .0
90 . l
95 . 8
93 . 7
96 , 9
91 . 7
12 . 5
97 . 5
97 . l
96.5
',3.9
79 _'1;
96.4
9~.•
9 7 .,
90 .l
95 . 2
92 . 5
96.2
96 . 5
""·~
!
I
9 7 .6
l r ro 'lcne or c; U.'flO l
Seven cottoo States
Al abno
lrkansas
Georgia
Louisi ana
Miss i ssippi
North Carol i rm
South Carolina
7.6
3.l
6 .9
3.6
I.I
2. 6
8.8
7.2
15 .7
3.8
9.4
5.9
Seven cotton States
0.3
Ala-
0.1
C.4
Arkansas
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississipp i
llorth Carol i na
South Carol i na
0.J
0.6
0.J
0.2
0.2
3.6
B. 2
1.1
5.3
16 . 8
) .6
9.2
5. 0
7. 9
3.8
• .6
I
I
i.a
9. 0
4.l
10 . 3
8.8
17 . 6
4. 7
10 ,5
7. 1
t;u...
•
0.2
0. 3
0. 1
0.1
0. 3
0. 1
0.5
0,4
0, 7
0. 4
0. 2
0 .2
.
..
•
.
0.1
0.2
o.•
0.2
0.2
0. 1
lll f'
~, ..
Q(), 6
9e. 0
93 . 9
"8 .5
96 . ?
311 . 9
tlti.l
9 1. l
'JR . 0
'14 , }
9 7. 6
10 .1
97.6
97.l
.~l ulW
• .9
I. 5
6.J
2 .9
16 . 0
2. •
7. 4
l .2
~
1 !e-n;-,,nt ~
!
;5 / OtJ(i
9"1.9
Seve-n co t t on States
Al abana
Arhnsas
Georg i,:1
- --
1. 2
Q,R
1. 1
0 . {;
0 .5
0. J
O. 'i
0 . 6.
0. 5
0. 7
0.'>
0.5
0. 5
I.I
o.,
• .0
1.5
0.4
0.6
?.1
0. 6
4.6
1. l
rou,
.I
0 .1
0 .2
0 .1
0 .1
0. 1
-
0 .1
0.J
I
I
lltttr lc Stoue
Seven cotton States
Al•t.a.
Arkansas
G!orgia
Lou i siana
Wiss,ssipc, i
llorth Carol ino
South Carolina
.
0.7
0 .1
0.5
0.5
O.J
0.8
0.6
0.1
0.3
0. 2
0. 1
1.0
1.5
.
.
0.1
o.,
•
0. 4
0.1
0.9
0 .9
0, 3
0. 1
0. 9
0.6
0.4
1.0
0. 7
0.2
l. 2
1.8
I
0 .7
0. 1
0.1
0.1
0 .1
I
.
0.5
0. ?
0. 1
I
I_
L. . . ,.._ I . ff ,-refill.
S.•ree : , . , . ....... ..,,.,,.,. . , ...._ ef IIDIN [coooalcs. • • s. Oep,ut-.nt or 1grlcvl h re •
•• c..,. ... , ... •IUI Clyi'I . ,. . - -i •istratioa.
-j
-
•-
· - - - -- - -
D1gt1zedbyGooglc
230
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
Taole 5,-RURAL OfATH5
mow
TYPHOID ANO PARATYPHOID,
S0UT"[A5T[R~ COTTOh STATES
AND
IN
PELLAGRA, ANO MALARIA,
IN SEVEN
OTHER STATES IN TH[
,REulSTRATION AREA OF TH[ UNITED STATES, 1930
------- --1Si_j;;
Rur1I
Popul.itt irn
--- ·
tt-,c;
--
SevPn cot ton St.-..tP'\
Rat ..
per IOC,000
Dt--at hs
-----·--
12 .•~ ,000
9ti
12. 9
3.12b
Al,u1am111
1.~.000
1,2
Arkansao;
1.472,400
2. 241. ()00
1,271. OOu
1,776,400
2,)1,\1,bW
1.)68,000
d3
8.0
19.2
18.9
12.4
445
312
GPOrg ia
louisi,..n.,
Mi !.5 i ss i pp i
North Carolina
South Carol ins
•
Ml'll .11ri;:i,,
~ll•gra
id "'nd F?lratyphnid
Rat•
O,.aths
p~, 100,000
Rate
""' 100,000
2;.2
2,050
16.5
2).4
267
!><,7
14.0
5.2
17.5
121
473
739
522
Jl.2
42
3.,_;
18.1
10.3
17.6
1.8
38.1
325
23. 7
5.0
1.32!>
2.8
939
1.9
24
157
2 20
12.4
123
2)j
2,4 15
514
21.2
22. 9
9.5
26.6
406
131
312
Other St"'"~ in t~
r~istration artta
48, 160,bOO
Dig t1zed by
Google
r
!j ' ~
,l
Table >)-OCCUPATIONAL HISTORY OF l,dJ O SOUTH CAROLI NA FAR~ERS , BY 1933 TENURE ANO BY COLOR
-
Per c ent i n Sp eci f ied Comb, nat ion - Owne r 2,, l 1n
fc t ~l Owners
Color
,.umber
Pe rc ent
to Tenant
to 0.wner
1--- -- - - - - - 4 - - - - --+- ) 4.9
11..
7 .1
~egro
162
100 . 0
14 . 2
Toul
531
Ne<J rO _ _
g_
Non - (., rTT11 n
to
Owner
100.0
wt,; 1.
"'
Non-farl"l ing
to
Owne r
515
fenant 5,
•ote :
Sowrc• :
622
100. 0
j
-~~~
-
J .J
4.J
o. •
- ' -- - ----'---- -- - - -
JS. 5
T~n;,nt I
No-;:-f--;-,...:;,~g--1
-
No
_
Chnng~
to
•-
_ _
44.7
_ __ _52~
Ten l.n l
IJ. 4
_
~. 8
---t--
w.,.•.
• •t" t
- fi,n'l'l, ng
Oi,.'T'le r
-
Owner t o
r,,a
ro1
no , t.o,.,,
l olen•nt
o,....,er
Teo,1n t
to Q...npr
TPn .=tn t
t o Owii P.r
to T~rH1n t
to Owner
-:--
~
(/)
2.~
LJ . ~
1. 1
U, o
l. ?
12. 4
I
•-
1.4
.,,.,,c:::
Ot her
Comb ination s
Te-nMt
reo.:iint
toTTen~nt
to
0-M1er t o
- ~ _ _
re,.an t _ _ __, _
5.)
3.6
I _
I
lU
•c- ,•
I
Qw., e r
~on-f 1roro1 ng
lo
t o r..,,,n t
T~n:tti l
11.1.,
).o
t""'
t"l
:x
- ·-
t"l
l '> . 9
z
>-:I
, J. C
- - - --- - - --- - -- ~ - - -- - ~ - - -- ~ -- --- -- -
H1 r ~ Ft1r,,,
HMd t o
Tllo• 1troport1on s or irt1 l te a"d ■ e 9r 0 aw.,ers Uu t fl.a d a•en en9e91td 1n na n~,e r111 l ng occupat,ort 1 at 10 . t11J1f' ;., l i ' e
fO ,• perc • l'l t. re1pective1h Cotap.1r.11:1l e r , ;i .. ,e , for •n •I• 1nd ••tro te.,.ntt. •1t r11 Jt. 1 perc e11 t a nd l'Z. , o.- r c e., t ,
Unp11oli1Aed dl\e froa 1o t1o1tly candwc teo ,,.,
wi t" t 11e c.w.• . . t.1.• •• a11d
e-1nn t l o
-
Per cent i n SDP.cif1~ Comb1n,1t 1o n - Ten ~.,ts (in l ~)j)
r
- - - - - - -+--Num
_ b_e_r _ +__P_• _rc_e_n_t
<i5
N
Ten ~n t
No
Chang e
"'1i l e
Color
0
Owner
-
J~33 1
Ot her
>
:;a
-<
>-:I
>
C,anb, ri ,i t ions
Cd
t""'
t"l
19 . 0
(/)
I.S
'>.8
{;. B
__ _ _1~
-
-
te . ) perc e "t • " Cl
re) p.,, ,,, .,, , ,
r 1o r~1e11tat 11'e ' •'"' "I eounl•• • Cl )' Ill e Sa111n Caroluu £• o•'• "'• " t S11t,on 1" c0<0 o•r • t•o n
"
'<
C;
0
~,..._
(v
(\)
t,l
....
232
LANDLORD ASD TES\ST ON THE COTTON PLANTlTIOS
-- - - -
-
---
--
,----1
F~lr
lei•
- ----- +-----
Jl~r
U~r 15 years
1~ to 19 y~.,,s
l
20 to 2, years
25 to 2~ years
I
•5 tO 5,C
ye/lH"S
55 to 64 ,....
.._,c.e:
100.J
•1. )',0
lC. >,/,8
17, 7)1
__
u,,10
5.041
2. 715
i
I
•
I
I
-----
~~n_l__
--+--'II~~-----+---
88,936
100.0
8G,517
liX.0
24.•
20,.UJ
2J.O
6.4
5, :•3
8,HJ
12 .41•
9. 5
u.o
20,9C7
5, 745
9,258
11,891
25. 9
7.1
11.5
U.8
ll.7111,760
18.•
17.903
lJ,2
20.1
10.5
U.J
2•.~
'11.514
Jl.155
65 years and CNe,
Un~nown
l&.1,45J
'
30to34r••,.
35 to.......
_____!!:c~,,!~~r __ ..,__~re~
t,,!)
1.6
''l'-••U c.-- •I ,..,. , • ._.._, I •Mu 1•0
a,~,
I
1.18)
[___ 1:;
,.tl04
3.0
_ __ '.~ ~ _ 0.2__
_
s.a
166
9.6
3.2
1
9.™
13.2~
5,923
2.237
I. 432
118
-- -
01q 112ed by
I
I
.
l
1
-
12.l
16.5
, ••
2 .8
l. 8
0.1
-
Goos IC
SUPPLEMENTARY TA BLES
Tab lp 55-llLIT[RACY
IN THr PO PULAT IO
233
10 Y[A RS OF Au l
AND 11 YE ARS OF AG( AND OVER, BY SE X,
A D OVER , BY COLOP.
1 930
l1
10 Ye..s r :, u l A.Ji.:. 11k.J 011er
lp er i:. 1.."11 tl
5t d e
T
N~ l Iv e
Rank +_ _ _ _ _ _ ___,__-
r~., ,_~
t
J r c +'"
\114 :sh, n~t on
2
2
lcae1h0
..
So , th 'Ja •ot,l
5
5
N~brd 5"-d
Y ,,r-.; ,. 1 f A,Je J ~
( µ~ rcl:' n t )
~,_1ro 1----q~ r1i.
R3.n~--+-llri I lt'-+------l-~~
R-"'nJ..
l1 , !>l..1lc:
-
O.A
1
0 .4
'l
J.o
!. 0
32
1. 5
5
?.5
1. 0
1, l
1.2
1.1
'}
0. 1
7
2 .9
2
1.2
7
0 .4
4.2
6
''
1. ~
\.'
I..
15
7
0.4
4
2.2
7
r..4
1)
3 _n
n. o
o. 1
77
5. 9
).2
I
7
1.5
q
1. 7
1. ,s
9
2
) .0
7
10
I. 5
7
~ , Of'l •fl~
11
!. ~
2
l7
0. 1
II
1'
1. 4
4. 2
:!. O
0. 9
20
6. 0
10
\1
11
7
10
O. l
4. 6
12
7. 1
o.~
21
20
0. 7
l.
I. 5
R
2J
Jl
'·'
0. 7
10
0. 6
I?
lril , nne;;o t t
'
v-
r
ll.1ko1,:1
l no 1.\ f'lil
12
!. 7
~ J n t d rt..1
12
Vt , !.c..; n s1 n
U
15
16
2
7
10
0.4
0.4
\7
1. 7
1.9
2. 0
?. 2
7. J
Ot-. ,o
17
2. J
111 11 ,u h
19
20
71
2.,
?. 6
7. 7
1,£
?1
l .7
a. q
21
13
7_q
1. '
1)
_. ,(. ~I _.W i'I
V~ rtlJ l'll
M1
~
v r,
Cd ! 1 t or n 1J
!.1.J 1ne
Nit,.,,, H.it() ::J-1 1 rt:
-.0. 11 rtOT.J
n
Co l or ~
Tl
l.q
Pr: r ri-~1 l ,.. -, n 1,l
25
J. I
~
26
27
J.7
. ,, i ( t' u :i. t' t l ::,
N't • Y.., r N
~ ,. Jer ...
t:. ,
29
V
?2
')q
!.9
3. A
, 0
n.2
1
0. 4
). 7
~1
J4
~- 1
11
40
)4
17
fl t!.r!I u :'. "1 1
3~
46
5. 7
•o
~
l6
)9
1.
41
11
l. .
"'.,o-:w rs l <1 no
., n~ 1s.
6.•
7. 1
7. 2
~ 1:'n ~ ,:i~ e
' •'::f• 01 t
Gt-c.r 1, ,
"'•r tt C.H ul
q _7
I n.J
36
••
40
9.•
JA
\ 0. 0
•s
43
l C.1
15
Al 1.1 "" '
,U
1?. 6
.c;,
-.. ,~s. 1:s.::..1 w •
,5
1
31
"" ""= .( ,c.o
.cf;
'17
• r 1z,>n.1
L
I Sl d 'ldi
.~
0
11
)
14
'
21
2. ,
' .l
q
).1
f,
' . Q
11
IS
10
,.,.
7\
, .1
J. 2
17
2. 7
21
.,n
J. 2
1. 1
2,1
·~ - Q
0
~-·
1 .6
., . •
.9
~- 3
11
11
JJ
1 n 1 -1
..,
\. '
2.0
l.'
I
i
17
t 1. J
1] . )
)1
~e ,1 ..,.-l J
C'"' ,n~-:. t , ;..~ t
"•· ~t V1 r ~
.?. 1
•
11
11
1'
1. I
a.e
,..
1. 5
1. '
6
5
1. 0
A. q
0. 1
1.1
I. •
I. 1
! ,9
1.fi
). 5
JO
zq
~r, l -,110
D~l d*~r~
Z?
0. 9
I. )
1.2
1.2
1. J
5
5
R..1 n..
.0
1
J
p
01o1 ,. r
n
n>~
t ") . C,
,R
,1 ~
_.iu_ut_n_c_._,_o_l_,n_•_ ___ _..__••_....L.._1_•_·9_, __,_1_
I
I. 5
•• 0
1 1.
~
Q
1
11 .
1
l. n
I
1s. •
, I
I
H .~
11.1
1 c, ~
X1 . 5
1.
7
1. 1
0 . "-
L>, ,
-1. 9
2 ,
1
._1_
I
l f;
1.1
47
•~
76 . l
n .,
p
9.l
JO
I.F.c 1
lfl . A
4~
l ~. 6
.1 4
,
1A . 0
J~
11r.
\ 1. 7
, :t. '
: ~.fi
1
,s _r
n
11. ~•
.t~
J) .J
.! ~
, , ._
~'1
Jl l
\_ _, C.
9 .....C,LC2:C6:.:._
9 _,L_,_
- _JL.....l;..0..;.·_0 ...L_
, _'_ _L_
i 1c_"c.'~
I
1A
4Fi
C1g1·zedbvGoogle
234
1,NDLORD AND TENANT ON TUE COTTON PLANTATION
hble '>6-q[SIDE•CE, co100, 4'D LOCHIOS I~ COTTO• OR
C45fS 1, S[VE• 50UTH[~srro,
rot,I
-
corro,
-
4re,
Tot,1
, 411.2u 121'>.11R
, ?83/!'>? !60,t>41
114,',j)
I
nA.OE6' 11H2.1qs
l??,411
80,14'!
9'>,6'>5
102,u,n
: llC,1°2
~n-cot ton count 1~'S
o,
RELIEF
Rur,1
~"'Jro
Nt-11tl"'
lUIIDAr R•l
1\11 ,:ounhP'io
Cot ton count 11~5
cou,r1[5•
u,b,n
~
----------+--ro_,_,_1_]+-_-Mhit,-1
,o,-rono,
ST4rts.' OCTOA[q 1033
I
Totll
~fl>~ro
.¥,it~
l•f CtJ.,.,s
7d.116
36.300
42,416
I
101.4AJ 1111 .04'>
43,,,l9 2c2,qo3
59,614 lOd,142
I
196.462111,.oai
124.341
7A,x'>2
72,121
)6,021
Percel'ltflte DhtrlOut Ion bl/ Hes1,1snce
411
COUf"ll 1e'S
Cot ton count,,.._
l~.0
100.n
~n-cotton cour,fi11a5
100.0
I
100.n
100.0
100.0
I
100.n
lfY'.n
IOC.O
I
36 .•,
?e. 1
48.6
I
2HJ,
]?J;
I
37.n
4 7."
JS.A
I
63.,
71. 7
62. l
I
71.l
77.4
63.0
51.4
I
5?. 5
64.2
37. 7
PPrcf'nlaffl i?I ,irtbi4tton blJ Color
411 count
•~'io
Cot ton COu"'l it"s
J
I
~~.R
IC0.01
100.C
_,.Orl-Cot ton count 1•'S
I(l('.0
5,1. ~
411 count ,es
100.n
100.0
~7.1
--~'·:'
',~.4
Cl.h
Cotton rou,,ti~s
~rn~_f0n_ co~n~~--
,('(1.0
I
'>6."
100.0
ICC. D
!Of .0
'ii.l
1ro.o
4C'1
I CX'.O
16.l
4l.'1
')(,.fl
~3.9
I 63.21J
61.
66. 7
36.A
18. 7
33. 3
IC0,0
100.0
IDG.C
1?.1
~7.fi
6~.?
fi'-1.0
lf."1
11.4
'• coll.,,. co .. ,,,, ,., ,,"" ,., •"•'" ,o i,f''Cl'l'II ,.,,. ..:,,.,. ot '"" 1,0-., ,,.,,. "'1co- ;,. 192t c.._ ,,o,. cotlol'I
fJ1r•-..
Of 11•,o ) t ) ~o,,,,I •f'1 '" \,if' \f'•,." Sl'lll't,. JJ) ,ir ~6 Jf''(.f''lt -erf' Collon COu'lt if'-. ,,. l,.19.
0All
co-;ilf'lf' f.H )Jf or ll'lf' !)9J ~ount,,,, ,at• "01 h\1!1t>lf' •or•:. .'Jlt-rw••I count,f'•• ,,.,-,1 d•I,. not
JIWl•l.tOlf' for. otl'l•r coul'llll"I, .. ,o .. ,. ,,,.,. "nl ,!IW,'1dlt)1• for I,,,,,,.,,,
~
.
.
.
.
.
11-'IDr•. 1.-~,,.,,.,, C.eor1••• Lou,,,,.,.,., ••••••••i.-P•, llorll'I C1•nl•l'l'l
.l)J ,,.,.., or "Ol'lf'r rJlff'!o,"
0
,'ll'ld Soul!'I C•rolin1.
C inc lw,,of''\
Table 57-COMBINED RURAL R[Ll[F A•O REHABILITATION INTEN~ITY RATES,• OC!OB[~ 1933
THROUGH JUN[ 1035, FOR RURAL COUNTIES,• BY AGRICIJLTllR4L AREAS
Al I
[ 1·:;tern
Are-1s
Appa-
Cot ton
,,_..!::.tt>rn
GJtton
ldch110-
11.5
14. I
10.9
12.A
15,4
12. 9
R.~
10.0
A.9
\0.0
17. I
.June
12,q
17.6
!l. 5
11.8
14.0
15. 4
A,9
9.6
11. 3
12. 2
13.6
12.9
July
A.u~ust
16.2
IA.O
13.0
Seott.~r
Oc tutier
Novd'Tlber
17. 7
Yc,lr ,Jnd
~nthc
Onr~
11,\) -inl
D.:t1r,
I.n,e
)Ute::,,
Cut-o ... er
Corn
Belt
Spr1 n~
0
\ ,t;e<lt
Winter
Whe.,t
R.1nchin,J
19)3
Octobc.!'r
Novemoer
Oeceftlber
4. 7
7.R
3.6
3.3
77. 7
72.6
\8.5
6. 3
1?,6
IA. 7
t?.O
16.3
4.1
73.6
9.2
3.R
J.9
4.6
5. \
5 g
9. I
IA.\
5.5
5. 5
6.6
o. 2
14. 7
\9, 7
17. 0
19.S
70.R
t•.6
14.7
19.5
26. 4
26.9
16.4
26.9
32. 9
8.6
3. 3
8.9
13. 3
11.R
10. 7
72 .5
21.9
2?. 4
2?. 9
7-1.0
2" .6
lo.3
I ~.A
!4, 5
13.9
16.4
l!i.A
27. 5
31.1
27.3
20. D
32.2
9. 7
10.6
1t. 7
t?.6
13.5
14.5
29.1
13.6
11. 7
11.A
15. 7
15. 3
I~. 4
34.!S
35.2'
35.6
16.A
n.o
6.2
9.5
9. 3
\934
JdOU4ry
Fel.lruary
Mdrch
Apri I
May
~cem~r
17.0
17.9
IA.R
\6.S
13. 5
\0.5
11. 7
II.?
15. 4
14.2
I I. 4
11. 2
12. 3
15.D
17. ~
23. 3
22. 4
22. Q
27. 4
2".l
14.4
0,4
24. 7
74.9
24. I
10.q
76.6
;,,,, 7
8.6
10. I
12. 2
13.J
11.4
13. 3
14.8
LB. I
IA.6
IR.2
70.S
13.6
\Q, 7
17,R
14.6
15.0
1'.4
\5, 3
1915
13.2
30. ~
)t",, 4
12. 7
1-1.R
?(;j.6
25.fl
20. 1
14.1
19.R
19.1
12. 7
I?. 7
11.a
~n.o
IA. 3
16. 5
11. 5
10. 7
14.R
13.4
9. 7
37.5
3n,,;
40. 1
35.6
Jan,...dry
Fe-Lirudry
19.6
!0.6
tLirch
Apr11
June
...,
71\.2
21.1
21. I
IA, 7
26. 7
25. 2
I 5.1
20.2
20.R
20.9
20.6
20.3
14.2
lc.6
19.,
21. !
21.0
19.8
11. 3
31.R
30.6
19.4
17.6
16.2
15.3
11.0
a,•,c•l'lt.,,9• r111t10 or total • s11~ur1 """'c", or reluf uld r•h&t1i11tEtion Ct.).eS to ell fa-il,•s .,, u,e .... r•sid•nc.• cla•s
1n l'f30.
rn• rl'hl"tldih,11011 i,,roqrui t:"1'<>n ,n 1.pr,1 19)•.
:• rwr~I cownt, 1s Jef•11ed •" o~ •" •'-ich tt1•re
••11,
no pl•c• or t.soo or 11Cre popwl t. tion iri tt,0.
Occ•s1on..,1 co1.1nt7 rof'pgrts - r • IIOI ,w,1,1l4.DJ• ror scatt•r.O .anths '>11t the -•ll -tlo•r or swcn a.inio,ia is nor a..trici•n\
10 invalid1.te ar,e,~ 111tensit)' r,ctes.
Sowrc••
Oivisiori or lei.e .. rc;l'II. 5U.t11tic1 •rid fin.nnce, red•r•I (Mrgenc, l•li•f' ldllini1tra1,on.
Dig ii Zed by
Goog [e
Table 58-RELIEF AND REHABILITATION CASES IN COTTON COUNTIES" IN SEVEN SOUTHEASTERN COTTON STATES• BY 6-IIONTH l~TERVALS,
IIAY 193) THROUGH NOVEIIBER 1935. BY STATES
Rel iaf
State
J;;
Nov,
llay
eas..
ft>v.
Rehabi Ii t.tt ion
M,,y
Nov,
Nov.
May
Caw,
Relief and Reh.tt.li 1 i tat ion Cases
Nov.
lldy
Nov.
May
Nov,
May
Nov.
1933
1933
1~31
l\'31
1935
1935
263,889
251,226
\31,216
33,065
46,442
52 ,8A2
26,931
16,116
47,605
I 7, 'I'll
(3,255
11,721
21,61'1
13,512
9,4A!l
34,233
11,020
1933
1931
193-'
1935
19)5
193'
1931
1935
391,1211
?92,&43
250,902
m,1fts
195,189
91,682
I), 353
30, ,2,
5.~. 757
39,531
391, 126
292,643
261,255
AlabMI
Arkansas
8',009
S,,1!27
29,129
24,188
S&,'83
30,eee
55,07(
34, ,10
21,537
12,A92
53,570
17,(91
55,921!
27,589
"· 70(
30,793
'1,028
22, 13,
10.oe,
36,615
16,255
13,1)7
15, CJl3
9,179
5,181
2':l, 776
12,215
18,101
2,192
1,205
2,
5,476
,,,23
995
16,801
3,017
d
18,\19
1U5'
1,500
6,052
10,990
I, 737
e.se,
Georgi•
77,189
37,697
25,812
27,153
,2.220
1e.rm
83,59&
8' ,009
P3. '177
2!1, 129
24, 16B
55,463
JO, 666
712
l,'75
77, IR'l
37,697
25.~12
27,153
42,220
I~. 977
63,595
57,26&
3A,615
21,561
l~,657
53. 570
17 ,19!
56. 100
Loul1lene
IIIHlsolppl
North Carol 1,.
South Carol I,_
•-•MUN .... ,,
S,,854
27,A58
9,61'
IA, 739
21,291
53,687
JA, ?AO
e, ,so
d
d
I 77.
I•••••
t""'
ll/ly
1935<
Sewn cotton States
en
.,,.,,
=
6,535
'· 333
'· 327
10,157
I, 775
3,523
,.,.111111
113.~I
It ,.,._, u • •
II ,-rcet11 er •re ,, Ue ltlt ,,... ,.,. l11ceat , . . ,,... ceuea ,,,... Dal• 1111
tor U c1ttol'I uuntln •
. . . . . . . ArUMu, ... ,.i1, L4il,lel1M., Rl11l11IHI, 1,,1111 carw11111, ...... , .. C1r11111a.
c, ......... , ..,. rea11111u11, ...... ceMlttN ., ., ....,., • • Ntr..,.c, UNI.,. Ille., •••
lteNIIINHI , . . lfll1tra1lefl, ltallHlca .. , . . . . ,, .. , • • ,.,,_., 11,, ...
.... ..... r ., cue• a11ecalM ,. ceU•• CMflllH 1Ml119 tNH IIINfl .... ,,o,ertlen ., '"- ..., " ' ' '"•111ta11H , ... In UIIH COlllflCIH.
-.. NMIII ltallH , ...
11 IUtlH etellellCI .., ,.",... . . .,.,.,.,, fro■ ,., 1,, llalllllCI,
1a. 121
28,853
7.6,115
51,756
21, 29'
54. 379
19,624
tlil
:c
1:1111
z
t-:1
►
~
><
t-:1
►
t"'
=
1:1'11
en
,.1,, ., '"·
0
,5·
;:_-.
,r•. •r ,..
... ,...,
,1.111. . ., leNercll, ltltlltlll 1M PIMMe, P,Ll,A,, 111111 ...." ' - " ' a.hhlrall••·
[
c:r
'<;
C')
0
a
()
~
t1I
236
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
Table 59-TENURE ANO COLOR OF FARII OPERATORS IN SEVEN SOUTHEASTERN COTTON STATEs.•
1930 and 193~
1➔
9•_o_ _ ___._____1➔
9_Js_ _ _--< Number Increase
or Oecre.-.se
Tenure ll'ld Color
"Uffllber
Total
Fu 11 o-ners
P.!rt o-ners
1.kn"9ers
Al I tenants
Croppers
ns. ~?
'>62,W
1,667,07'
'()>,BJ?
90.,12
'· 718
10C.O
1.0f7,0S2
6,1.0
1.0'51, 367
SI 1, 7fS
1.
30.2
s.,
Percent
or Decrease
3.5
100,0
+ Sll.103
+
17.6
5.li
0. 1
61.6
29.9
+ ~B.69C
+U.6
94, ,;,;,
o.,
Percent Increase
• ,A7?
+ • ,15•
B•E
♦
•.6
-1'.8
- 0.3
- 5.S
+ 5.0
sn. n1
32 .6
'>2~.?Jg
11.•
~•ti, ic:q7
11.B
- 3 .€90
- 10. 003
+ 26,318
Total white
gqs. 971
1or.o
I, 10• ,?91
100.0
•tre. vo
+10.9
Fu 11 o""ers
P~rt o.-.ers
•71.7'1
G~, 7F0
42. "l
6.6
.l.7f ,€;70
CS.2
+ ~S.399
+ 6.2S\
+13.2
+ 9.5
663
-12. 3
Other ten11nts
77,011
lbtinagers
•.720
4Q.9
2;\l.?JQ
7()(l,R70
1~.070
1R.2
"1. 7
7"• '"J7'-1
7F;t,tc.1
10('.0
Full owners
A? ,r11
l'.1
P,ut o-.i,ner'5.
?.4
Al I tefl1nts
Croopers
Other ten.,nt s
o.,
s•o. q,o
Tot)tl ~gm
M..n.itgers
6,S
5cr1 • 5~7
Al I ten1nts
Cropoers
Oth~r ten-1nts
,F.',')
'2,7
I
•
I
♦ '7 .38•
- 19. 1 s9
♦
6'1,70
♦
9.•
- 8.8
+73.6
"' .0
•e.7
--~r; -~
_.l
_.•l•D••· a,•an•■ s, G-.or,i; ■. L.,..i,"ti•"•· 11,,,,1u,pr,. •orll" tarol,"4, ""d Soul"' C•~ol•"•·
S,ourc•:
,,~ur•••
111~1•4 JJ"I., C•u11.'II rof Atl'"le1dh"•-'
!iJ~. ,r,pli••""'
11\d l_,,ll•J ,Uyt•t C•11..111..1 0/ lt"tc11l1wr•1
\lol~• fl. ,an 1, Cou"lt f•cde 1. 511001-•nt•I ,or l"'" S.011ll'l•r" stat••·
D1g1:zed by
/1.)f),
Google
table 60-CHANGE IN NUMBER OF TENANTS, BY TENURE ANO BY COTTON ANO TOBACCO COUNTIES" AND NON-COTTON ANO NON-TOBACCO COUNTIES
IN SEVEN SOUTHEASTERN COTTON STATES, 1930-1935
en
c:::
.._,
.._,
Increase or ~creese 1930 - 1935
t'"'
Al 1 Tenant:-.
Nuo,be,
Seven cotton States
Alabarre
Arkansas
Georgia
Lou is iana
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Caroli M
0
~
N
Cotton and Tobacco Counties (367 i•
All Counties (593)
State
- 3,690
+ 9,827
932
--10,059
+ 826
- 8.053
+ 4,543
+ 15B
Percfl'nt
- 0.3
+
+
+
+
5.9
0.6
5.8
0.8
3.6
3-3
0.2
Croppers
Numbe,
-30,008
+ 2,840
- 9,•Jl
-20,429
+
791
+ 1,620
- 2 .698
- 2. 701
Percent
- 5.5
+ 4.4
-12 .6
-20.3
+ 1.6
+ 1.2
- 3.9
- 5.5
All Tenants
Other Tl!Mnts
Number
+26,JIB
+ 6,987
+ s,,99
+10,310
+
35
- 9,673
+ 7.241
+ 2.859
Percent
+ 5.0
+ 6.9
+10.9
+u.1
+ 0.1
-10. 7
+10.6
+ 5.3
N~er
PP.rcent
-18,520
+
-
7,151
4,•31
7,Jl9
1,251
8, 95B
2,119
1,593
•• cotto,. co1o1nt, is one in •hich 110 pl'rt&nt or aore o, tr,e gross rar■ Inc~ in lflt c.-. fro,, coUon
,, ' " ' culllvatea ,11cre119e In 1t2t
3ource:
' " ' ' ' ' Seate•
c, ... _,..,
of
•fll'I
- 2.1
+
-
4.6
3.5
9.2
1.5
4.?
1.9
1.6
hr111.
Crop~rs
Number
-22, 798
+ 3,029
- 8,763
-11,360
+
709
+ 1.23 7
- 4,592
- J, 05B
Percent
- 5.0
+ 5.1
-13.0
-23.2
+ I. 7
+ 0.9
- 7. 7
- 6.J
(%J
Non-<otton and Non-tobacco Counties (226)
-- ---
Other Tf!nants
Nuo,be,
+ 4,278
+ 4,122
+ •.332
+ 4,041
- 1,960
-10,195
+ 2,473
+ 1,465
Percent
+ 1.0
+ 4 .•
+ 7.2
+!J.2
- •. 7
-11.6
• •.8
+ 2.8
TeMnts
- ~Al 1-,__.Number
+14,830
+
+
+
+
+
+
2,676
3,499
2, 1,0
2,077
905
6,662
l, 751
A totlacco county Is one in which 10 percent or -,r,
Percent
~+ 7.9
+21.6
+}3.9
- 2.9
+ 9.0
+19.0
+25_ 7
+86. 7
Other Tenants
Cropi;ers
NU!llber
- 7,210
-
189
-
8.6
3.6
8.6
- 17.5
♦
82
1.2
383 + 1• .5
1,894 + 20. 7
357 +315,9
668
-- 9,069
+
+
+
+
Percent
Nunt,er
+22,040
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
2,865
•. 167
6,329
1,995
522
•• 768
1,394
Percent
+21.1
+J9. 7
•23.8
+u.e
+!2.5
+2,.8
+2e.•
+74.9
--
3:
(%J
...,z
;,a.
;:Q
>-<
...,
>
tr
~
t%l
en
plM1ted In I004CC0.
.,,,.,,.,u.,.,:
JN,.
~
u
'<
C')
0
aIv
(\J
c,.l
-..;i
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
238
f,tlc 61-PEOC[Nf ce••~E
RY
1, THE NU~HfR OF
TENANTS
r(;N--TOaACCO COUNTIES,
-tl\.•r1,,,.l'lll
, 11,Vl'IIC
1Q\J-l·d5
l ~r~:.,:;--J -
Al I len..-,t, - -
Al_l_r
Cot-ton
vun-
Ta:~co
Jrilu'flOer
Percent
Count ,.,
~OJ
7lf1
100. 0
100. 0
no
14.5
f.2
12.4
15.1
4,4
C.,01
1f:"l
100. 0
100. 0
10.1
4,7
9.6
16.7
2.~
'.8
7.9
17.7
28.5
32. 7
ll. 7
22. 1
7.•
0. 5
l7 .0
l~.6
6.6
0. 4
1030--1915
---C~oppers
Non-<.~n ~ -
_'_'._~---l~"--""--' '.':'' ,:_-,.,,,, •>
Totdl:
IN ,EVEN SOUTHEASTERN COTTON STATES,•
COTTON••~ IORACCC COUNTIES" ANO NO•-COflON ANJ
Collon
ta::,o
Cusnt ,es
---Otner
~l,1~ - - - 5
hci-,-~-o,-,-o-n,_A_I_I_T Cotton
:::.1Nco:
Cu..nt, es
'3'5.,100. 0
100. 0
9.e
4.1
6.8
10.1
22.1
4.9
5. 3
14.2
16.2
15.8
9.8
17. 7
18. 5
21. 3
6. 1
IL~
19.0
6.6
6.6
!Z'F
I
-~~--t-;":t~:,
Co n
ano
0
l ~on-rot~
I dl110 "ctn-
-~::~~',':,
100. 0 1100. 0
726
100. 0
8.7
7.4
15.2
21.3
21'.3
15.0
16.H
17.7
20.,
13. l
11.0
1•.2
s. 7
7.€
2.0
3.0
..._
1. 3
2. 2
5.8
2. 7
0.4
"M
1~7
lnc.red!,C
{+3f.) ,\ntJ o ... er
f+;>f,J - 1•35)
f+lli I - 1•151
(♦
61 - 1•15)
6.7
11.6
10.3
15.9
19.g
i
little ch,vi-.,e
1•51-1-4)
D« rease
I- 51
1-1~,
1-~I
1-35)
- 1-141
-- 1-2•1
- (-3' I
7_g
0.5
15. 9
20 ••
7.9
5.6
,_-~--'· 9
ana over
-~-~-
___ ____
.._
••lab ... , lrll111u•. '•or9,a, Lou,1la11a 0 Nl11,s1l111p1, lc;irt,1 Carc;il i,,a, and )outl'I Carol i1'41.
l>A cotton (Out1t7 1s on• ,,. M11Ch It' parc,nt or "IO•• or th• i;iross ,.,_ ,ncoa. ,n 1,n c - . rro,,, canon rar,u.
A loCN,<Cc, co11nt7 11 on@ ,,. •"•Ch 10 pprc,nt or ,..,p "' Iha cultuat~ ■ CfP ■ t• in lf1f • ■ s pler,ta<' ,n IOD,u.co,
soo,1rc,: hUM ltes., C•u- of ,,~«c.Uwe: ,..,,
Tabl• 62-l~CIOENCE OF RELl[F •~ONG PLANTATION FlWILIES, 1934 TO JULY 1, 1935;
oY
~ONIHS ANO BY TENURE STATUS
(Cot 1 l"ln Pl.,ntat ion [nuf"f'lrl'lt i c-nJ
1935
Tot.,l number of cac:.~~ r,aport iniJ 0
Ur(Jupl icat~c, tot/31 rflCPiv1ng r,-1 ief
702
3.1
1{9
J~nuary
F~bruary
Jerch
Apr i I
Moy
June
I
120
52
32
30
29
2,700
104
860
11
47
11
7
11
10
10
ll
2 .6
2 .•
13
83
8
8f
1.0
3
;
3
30
13
•2
13
2
10
3
13
4
8
0.6
0.6
0.6
10
•o.ta
oy .-ol'llfls . . ,. r,ol •••ilaDI• tor all c••••• f"9refore, •itftlff flgur,s are 91••" tor Ille,._,.., of
CAMI Oft r,lief ift a 9iv,n aonl",
b,or total f••i I 1,, •~ra\N tt7 tenure st,1111, Ha appencli• I, taole I,
Dig t1zed by
Google
Tabl• 63 -
0B LI GATI ONS'
I SCUR RE O F Oq EVE qGENC Y RELIEF , BY SOURCE OF FUN DS , J A~U ARY 1933 THR OUGH SEPTEMBER 1935.
I N UNI TE D STATE S AND SEV EN SOUT HEA STERN COTTO ~ STATES
====== ===;:============= = _,..
A.moun t
Un i led S1 "te s
Seven cot tor. States
100 . 0
I
17 .4 9
100 .0
?76 , 908 , 586
28 7,33 1. 042
A. r \i:.ansais
Gt-org1 tt
40 , 541 . 707 1
46,JU , ll l
5 1. ~69 ,44 6
lriA1 551'5!.• PD!
North C-'\ r o l •~
0
l\1110unt
u1. 03
45 ,650 , ';84 I
• l., e ! I
Pe rcen t
$3 , B!JQ . 784 . 01s I
41 ab-'!rM
Sou th ( M ()l
~ r C~p I t a
1n !
J0 ,20 1,995 L
37 .fil B. IZ?
l 5 .•fl4 . 867
--
7.25
21 . 86
15.9)
24 . 41
l5. 0)
11 . 92
:".l .•:
-
100.0
100 .0
100 , 0
100 .0
100. 0
100 . 0
100 .0
'3,344 , l57
39,0 77,384
44 , 0!6,621
I
49,675,984
29 , 418, 78-'l
36 , 566, 565
Pe r Cap i ta l
Perc en t
~mou~ P e r Cati• t d
, 22. 21
71.6
'461,656 , 119
16.85
96.4
631.156
16 . 38
21.0 7
15. 14
23 64
14 . 64
11. 53
34 . 788 , 98'
20 . 0!
--'-----~
- ~- - - ~ - - -
Local funds
St ,te F'u ods
Fede r~ 1 Funds
$2 , 72 6 , 487,865
lou•~•aM
'°,:;,o
I
- , -= = =============
r------
To t a I
SU t•
(/J
'l6 .41
94 . 9
163, 742
301. 71 2
95 . 0
5
96 , Q
1 ,6Q7
97 . 4
164 .000
96.7
98 .0
Pe rcen t
~un t
$3 . 76
w 11 .640 .031
I
, 04
0. Z
9 ,791, 300
I
0. 4
.0/3
.16
..
0. 7
•
b
.08
-
0. 5
-.1...__ _ _
Pi- n:en
t%l
$5 . 06
16 , J
:z:
. 60
j, 4
I Per C.:ipit 21
12. I
2 .14 2.5~
. 81
1 ,162 , 611
. 63
• 79
2 , 30 7,595
1, 611 . 76 5
. 77
6 19 ,207
1, 251. 651
. 31
. 39
695 ,880
. 40
_
L---
-
C
"'Cl
"'Cl
t""'
3:
t%l
>-:l
>
-<
::0
4.7
2.9
5. 0
l.l
2 .1
;;;;;!
J,J
t""'
>-:l
>
} .0
- - - - ' - - - - - - ---'-- --
-
t:'l
Ul
tl'l ,a " Q , 0 1, o.·r( ~ I\I
, 1,1 ~ r•I• (' ' • • t • "4•d i,"d• ' ll•• ,. ,,,., • •
o "e C ■ P'IL ,
_.O"l,u ., ,.,4n of IW , . , . k . 1. , oc t oct' r sen. r..." 1 ■ i. • "d
• 11,c 1.,a. , g ol l i,1 11 0"1, ,r,.c .. r• •d
,, 1, ,,
i, roe• -
. ,.d I l l · • • d •l 0 • 01 r- 1, "' "d ' o r , o,. r,. , , , r1 tio ,.,
l)l t l l \ " I "
So.,r c•
,~,,.,111 u,
C' •IW'"" of, _.. l ur.- 4 li4tu ,
I U O.
a.
0-
'<
(;)
0
a-n
rv
0,1
<.O
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON TH& COTTON PLANTATION
240
Table b4-RELIEF GR4NTS TO RURAL RELIEF HOUSfHOLDS, BY AREAS, JUNE 1935"
1138 Count i~s R~prt'sll!nt ing 9 Agricultural
r,.,ui1
P.-rc~nt Accordinii to Si1f'." of Rf"1 il!f Grant
C-'lS~'\
1JlTI ••ui,o I;_Lt
Area
'rt1.IT'Of"r
Ar"asJ
sto
ilO
-
Pt-rrf"nt
to
IJU
to
-
to
>60
-
to
o8c
-
:. oU
Sl\JO
lo
ard
,:yv,.,-
ol00
.-,.d i'Jn
Si
z"b
of
Rtal ief Grant
Afrtcul turiJI Co3es
Al I ~reas
Cotton
•5t"rn Cotton
[A~t"rn
Apoa I ach ian-Otark
l.Ake- St.lt~s Cut-O¥er
Hay and Dairy
23. 394
100.0
3.30IJ
J, 764
6,622
9!,2
2,3 IO
100.0
l\JO.O
130.0
100.0
100.0
38.8137.7 19.0 3. 7
7.4
53.2 J7.2
1.8
57.7 , 35.5
6.0
0.6
0,8
48.01 43.l
8.0
16.8 32.2 35. 7 11.3
12.0 31.8 42.9 11.1
10().0
100.0
100.0
100.0
3 7,3
10.0
Corn ~It
Spring *heat
2,778
Winter •he11t
61,t,
Ranching
722
2,212
26,2
35.9
J2 .6
4.5
-
Sll.84
1.1
D.1
-
0.1
0.3
15.~
17. 76
12.26
18.20
0. 7
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.1
2.9
2.1
-
8.98
8.61
9.81
19. 93
21.5-t
20. ~ 34. 7 .JJ,8
B.2
0.5
1.8
0.2
0.3
J:;.1 21.ti
45. 7 40,4
6.0
2.8
1.1
-
-
1.6
0.2
0.1
l• ,64
1.0
1.1
0.5
-
-
12.U
9.10
12.15
2C.96
-
-
lon-Alrtcul tural Caau
Al 1 a,.eas
£astern Cotton
Western Cot ton
Appalachia~zarlc
L.ake States Cut-nver
Hay and De i ry
Corn Bolt
Spring Wiw,at
•inter ltle-at
Ranching
21,4'6
100.0
27.8
2,152
l.654
7_,04b
l,85~
4,096
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
31.9 46.4
53.0 35.5
35.8 40.5
18. 7 28.3
13.5 27.1
27.8, 6.81
15.b
5.1
8. 9
1.5
2C.5
2 .6
35.b 12.4
41.. 14.9
22.2
13. 7
29.8
15.8
37. l
6.3 0.8
40.6 11.9 6. ~
29.~
5.6 2.0
JI. 7 3. 9 1.8
3,090
100.0
58b
100.0
100.0
396
~-1()()_.Q
35. 7
3:3.3
26.6
)2.8
46.8
-t"• •"U,.
J.8
2.6
0. I
1.0
0.4
1.2
0.1
O.J
-
-
23.27
17.65
22. 7'
15.33
16.23
0. 7
-
•1•ch1sive or c•••11 op•Md, reope111ed, or clo&e<I dwriftf
bNlidl•11• calcwlated fr0t1 orltlnal taltle •IU ...
Chu l11tervah •
11.,
.,..,c•i
S•r••r of Cwrraftt Ch•flll•• 111 Ula lwral lellat ro,u1atlo11, 01.,1111011 or Soclal l•Marct1, w,,.a.
Table 65-CASES RECEIVING RURAL REHABILITATrON ADVANCES DURING JUNE 1935, CASES EYER
UNDER CARE, AND AMOUNT OF GOODS ISSUED
REHABILITATION PROGRAII,
UNDER
THE ENTIRE RURAL
IN UNITED STATES ANO
SEVEN SOUTHEASTERN COTTON STATES
Gases
Rec~ 11, i ng
State
Advanc~s
June l~J!,
Uni tl'!'d States
Al.'!ibalTll'!I
Arkans.!is
~orgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
•--•.O
Source:
Ofl
Al I Goods lssu~
Ever
Linder
Cere
Amount
Subs i~tenc'° Goods
P•r
P.r
A~unt
Cl.Ilse•
Case•
Cl'lp ital Goods
Anount
P,r
Case•
397. 130
S49,QJ9,382
Sl24
U•,117,bJ4
536
SJ•, 921. 748
588
84,713
1J7. 901
22,873,508
166
8,685,898
63
14,187,610
!OJ
17,507
18,998
12 .394
10,710
12,360
6,b65
6,079
31. 923
2~_489
IJ, 701
36,87!/
14. 705
8,435
6,769
3.351.201
5,424,138
4,059,036
3,224,147
3,350. lb5
1,626.634
l.ff38. 187
105
213
296
~7
288
193
1.60),495
2.143,667
827,118
2,508,991
945,618
312,493
344. 516
;.J
1,747, 706
J.200,471
3.231. 918
715.156
2,404,547
l,Jl4.141
1,493,671
55
129
203,418
Seven cot ton States
Tot111
Case-s
---~
272
84
60
68
64
37
51
236
19
164
156
221
total n.-Oer of cas•• l'ver under care.
•00\i,u,
1e,o-r1 o/ Ch ,.1.1.1., August
1')!1,
hDIH 1-2 end 1-J,
,P.
11-U.
Dig1wKI by
Google
I
APPENDIX B
METHOD AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY
DigtizedbyGoogle
D1g1tzed
t,yGoogle
IIETROD AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY
A plantation was defined in this study as a tract owned or
leased by one individual or corporation and operated under one
111anagement by fhe or 11ore families, including that of the resident landlord. This is in conformity with the definition adopted
by the Census of 1910 with the exception that the 1910 Inquiry
included only those tracts operated by five or more share tenant
families whereas this study includedplantations with as few as
iour tenant families if the landlord also resided on the plantation. This study also included a few tracts operated by five
or more renter families and a few operated by the landlord and
four or 110re fa11ilies of hired laborers. Although the rented
and wage labor plantations were excluded fr011 the 1910 Inquiry
it was felt that a c011plete picture of the present situation
deaanded the inclusion of rented plantations a.~ representative
of the disintegration of large-scale operation, and of wage
labor plantations as the su"ival of a method of operation which
was universal soon after the Civil War and has gradually died
out. The saaple selected at randOII frOIII representative areas
averaged 85 percent operated by share tenants with an occasional
wage band family to look after the landlord's unshared operations. The other 15 percent were about equally divided between
renter-operated and laborer-operated tracts.
Tile stuCS, focuses attention on the plantation as the unit,
t.e., Oe complete operations of the enterprise are studied and
the shares allocated to the landlord and to the tenant are analyzed separately with SOiie cross-analysis.
It was originally intended to s•ple 800 plantations-a nu111ber considered adequate to represent cotton plantations in the
Southeast, if carefully chosen. Later exigencies of time and
perS01111el dictated a 2D percent reduction in this number so that
the ftaal. results are based on 646 schedules of plantations
which contained 9,414 tenant and laborer families.
Tile saaple was restricted to the Eastern Cotton Area in order
to secure relative h011ogenei ty in trends and costs of production and in tenant relations, these factors operating SOlllewhat
differently in the Western Cotton Area. The saaple was, therefore, apporti011ed to the States of North Carolina, Georgia,
Alabaaa, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas 1 on the following
1
1Datb Cu-ouna • • lncludH In llactcround atatllttce or tbla eta~ IMlt • •
e:rcladed fl'OII tbe plantation aaaple owlnc to the ract tbat a l&J"Se-ecaie
raraln1 atu~ bad ban ■ade tbe 1•ar before bJ the south caro11na bpertaent Station. UDpabllabed data tl'OII tbla ata~ .. r• aYatlable.
243
o,n11-edbvGooglc
2M LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
basis (Figure 6, chapter II. The !lumber of plantations i!I each
of these States in 1910 was multiplied by the percentage which
cotton production in 1930 was of production in 1910. The proportion which this weii:hted product formed o! the sum of the
weighted products determined t.he proportion of the sample al 1otted to the State. Table A shows the resulta!lt distributio!I of
the sample by States:
Tobie 4-PLAIITATIONS INCLUDED IN TliE SN,IPLE, BY STATES
State
NU"'ber of
Pl~~l!_~ions
Percent
Distribution
Total
646
100.0
Alab""°
1.54
2).8
13.8
17 .8
10.6
26.9
7 .1
Arkansas
Georgi a
Louisiana
Wississippi
North CArol i na
89
115
68
174
46
Within each State the sample was apportioned to areas according to the number of plantation counties in the area., 2 weii:hted
hy the percentage of tenancy in 1930. For eXiUllple, having determined by the first step that 174 plantations were to be al located to Mississippi, these 174 plantations were distributed
among the Delta, Mississippi Bluffs, and Black Belt areas in
proportion to the product of the number of counties in these
Table 11-PLAIITATIONS INCLUDED IN TliE S..PLE, BY AREAS
NUfflber of
Total
Atlantic Cout Ploin
Upl)er Pl oo,,ont
Bl•ck Belt (Al•
Slack Belt (Bl"
Pl ant at ions
Perc~t
Distribution
646
100.0
511
8. 7
6.2
17 -3
15.3
20.7
,o
112
99
Upper Delta
50
Lower Del ta
50
Muscle Shoals
22
Interior Plain
Mississippi Bluffs
Red River
Arkansas River
30
,1
,.6
28
,.3
29
4.5
•crop,-,
•M
7. 7
3.,
7.3
•uer ,.,.,.. ten.,n .;.,.,,,.
bluter •Jorltp.
areas multiplied by the percent of all farms operated by tenants.
By this process the SiUllple was distributed in 11 areas as shown
by Table B.
Thus, the plan tat ions selected for study were distributed proportionately by States and by the homogeneous areas of the Cot ton
Belt which extend across State lines.
2 ror designation or these areas, see chapter I and figure 6.
C1g1
zedbyGoogle
METHOD AND SCOPR OF THE STUDY
245
Within each area, the sample was allocated so far as possible
to representative counties chosen on the basis of percentage of
tenancy, per capita income from agriculture, and the value of
farm land per acre.
Within each area, counties were selected that represented
the average of all counties in per capita 1930 gross farm income
and in the percentage of tenancy in 1930 as shown by a frequency
distribution of the counties I Tables C and DI. Within each
Table C-PUNTHIOHS INCLLJlED IN SAIIPI.£, BY PER CJ.PITA GROSS FARM INCOI,£
Per Ca" i ta Gross Fam Inc:Offle
Numb"r of Plantations
--------------------1----Total
S100
125
150
175
200
250
to S125
to 150
to 175
lo 200
to 250
lo 300
CJ' COUIITY IN 1930
646
79
96
177
IOI
90
57
300 and over
,3
county, the sample was selected at random from one or more townships orotherminor civil divisions, which were representative
of the county according to the percent of tenancy and the value
of farm land per acre.
Before beginning the enumeration of plantations in a given
county, the supervisor of the study conferred with the County
Demonstration Agent or the Rural Rehabilitation Supervisor relative to the townships chosen, and on the advice of the county
Table [}-PI.ANTATIONS INCLUOEO IN SAMPI.£, BY PERCEIIT TENANCY IN COUNTY IN 1930
Percent Ten!ncy
Number of Pl !Int at ions
Total
646
40 to 50
21
12
135
50 to 60
60 to 70
70 to 80
19'
80 to~
90 to 100
192
92
o!fici al made such changes as appeared necessary to obtain a
representative sample.
To obtain schedules for the required number of plantations
in a given county, each enumerator was assigned a township, or
section of a township, and instructed to enumerate every plantation along a main road and its branch roads until he had obtained the number of plantations apportioned to the township.
In the enumeration of a given plantation, the procedure was
to fill the schedule for the landlord first and then the schedules for the tenants. Interviews with tenants were not held
Dig tized by
Goos le
246 LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
in the presence of the landlord. On plantations that bad between 4 and 10 resident tenant faailies, schedules were taken
for all families where possible; on larger plantations a randoa
sample, apportioned to the different tenure classes, was taken,
approximatelf 15 tenant schedules being the maximua nuaber taken
on any one plantation. The following table !Table Kt sbowa the
representation of the various tenure classes aaong all tenant
families on the 646 plantations and in the suaple of tenant
families en1111erated.
Table E-TEN4NT FollllLIES OIi SolllPI.I PI.ANTATIONS AICl TENANT FAMILIES [11\KRATED, BY TUUI( STATUS
======-:..___.:-:....::---=====================Tenant F.-i I ies Enu111erated
Tenant FMi I ies on SMple P1antat ions
Tenure Status
-·
-·
- - - --- - - - + - - - - - ~ - - - - - Percent Oistribut ion
Percent Distribution
5,171
100.0
867
16.8
55.8
13,8
12.6
9,CIC
100.0
I. 581
5,370
16.8
57.0
1,394
IC .8
716
Renters
863
Displaced tenants
206
9.2
2.2
653
49
fotal
..,9• hands
Croppers
Ott'le'r share teMnts
2,886
1.0
To insure the irreatest possible accuracy the enu■erator cllected the tenant I s state■ent of cash after settlina, s11bsistence
advances, etc., with the operator's state■ent. Also, the operator• s and tenant I s state■ents of A. A. A. benefit pa,aents received bf thea were checked q&inst the records in the office
of the county agent. All data pertaininir to the relief history
of the tenant were obtained froa the records of the County Paergency Relief Administration. Values of crops sold were obtained insofar as possible fro■ sales records. Values of ho■e used
products were assigned by securina the quantity coas•ed and
multiplying by the local prevailinir ■arket price esti ■ ated by
the Farm Deaonstration Airent.
As soon as possible after a plantation was enu■erated, the
plantation and tenant schedules were edited by the s11penisor
in conference with the enaaerator. Return visits were ■ade to
the plantation when necessary.
C1g1
zedbyGoogle
APPENDIX C
PLANTATIONS ENUMERATED, BY COUNTIES
Digitized by
Google
D1·1•zedbyGoogle
PLANTATIONS ENUMERATED, BY COUNTIES
rotal
646
Alaba.11a
Bibb
Bullock
Calhoun
Elmore
Hale
154
Lauderdale
wwndes
Arkansas
Crittenden
Miller
Phillips
/Jefferson
Lineotn . wnoJre
fulaski
tioodru"ff
18
25
12
18
29
22
68
Ntsstsstppi
Adams
Carroll
Clay
Coahoma
Quitman
Warren
Washington
Yazoo
174
25
10
19
10
19
10
30
I' . -·.
89
: L_ I . 1
12
182014
,_Jo._ ......
7
6
2
10-
Geortta
Carroll
Dodge
Hancock
Jenkins
115
Madison
12
20
18
McDuffie
Mitchell
Webster
Louisiana
Caddo
Concordia
Lincoln
Tensas
Webster
12
J' -ti / <;
-
\
t - ;._ ~- ~ ~ -·
'
I ,,,,.
l '
22
20
25
21
30
,
:
r ., /'
I.
13
13
I
l .- ,,:.
g
18
r1
(
/•
17
14
"I:
P-
fLJ·(
ll·· \-v
\/"J'{
249
North Carol tna
Anson
Cumberland
Edgecombe
Iredell
46
13
12
17
4
01g11ze<JbvGoogle
APPENDIX D
SCHEDULES AND INSTRUCTIONS
D1g1:zed by
Google
Drg trzed oy
Google
SCBKDULBS AND INSTRUCTIONS
253
FERA FOAM DRS 200
SURVEY Of PLANTATIONS
FEDERAL EM£RGENCY RELIEF ADMINISTRATION
DIVISION Of RESEARCI<,
STATISTICS ANO FINANCE
HHIIIY L. HoPKINS, ADIIINISTUTO•
CORAIN'10N GILL,
0tA(CTOA
PLANTATION SCHEDULE
E•uMl•ATfD .,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Eo1no IY 1. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2. _ _ _ _ _ _ __
2.
LOCATION o,
Pu,NTATIO■:
Sun _ _ _ _ _ _ CouNTY _ _ _ _ _ _ TowNSH1, _ _ _ _ __
Aoao _ _ _ _ _ NtUlST
TOWN _ _ _ _ _ o1ITANCl
(WILIS ,aow) _ _ _ _ __
...
N•H• IN OPl ■ UOl 1 S HOUHHOLD
(UCLUDINC SUVANTI Oft IOAltDlltS) _ _ _ _ _ _ How WHY OTHll ,.UWS OWNID _ _ _ _ _ __
,.
0,111•
Of''"'
occu,u10•
O,tAATOllt _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ lNCOMf tr•OM
6.
0All ANO MITHOO
((NT( ► INNUITI0
■ OUGHT
o,
s,,,
OTHlllt occu,u10•---
ACQUllltlNG LUO
f'OAICLOIID
Ho• Acou I ll 0
WAUIAGI)
Acru:s
Ont
°""•·
TOUL 0.NtD
Aoo IT I DUL
Runo
PLANTATIO• TOUL
7.
LA•D
8.
VALUI
H•Uo our _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ La•o on••no _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
o, , ......
¥11.UI M
LAND _ _ _ _ VALUl
A ■ IMAll
10.
h , t CW TIIIANT
■AH
NODS
o,
OPUAT011t 1 1 111. _ _ _ VALUI
o,
OTHI ■
ILDGS. _ __
_ _ _ _ _ VALUl Of' lilAC .. INIH _ _ _ _ _ _ TOTAI. YALU( _ _ _ _ _ __
ACltll
No. o,
ONuno
FAIUL IES
11.
hPl 0, LA ■ O
1 N CIOPS
C•o,.,.r•s
TILLULI 1..1110
SHU(
PA9TU ■ l
Tl NAN TS
IOU
RtNTUS (CUN OD STHOINCi)
'IOOOS NOT PASTURED
FAWIL l!S IN NOUSl WtTNOUT CROP
WASTI LA.O
TOTAL
TOUL
Acua
254 LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
Faaw
Y(AA
12.
Cao .. ,
lfiilUt•r.
19~
2
OP,u,011 1:s Saus
11AA'llSTlO Ju.&•r1n
AClt( 5
PAODUCI
•
c»t:anoa's
FAIIIILY US(
Tou,L
01---.----..--+----,..---1 Tu,.un
p" !Cf
C-,AIIT I"" Y.ILUf
1-
COTTON,
2.
Cono11suo, ••'-''
"•
COTTONSUO
6.
Cono11nto, ,.,..,., Tlu•-•~•-+·- - - +- --t---+--
Juun
I TT VALUE
SMARIS
w.t.(.I S
___ _
CIIO,,(RS
,0001 R, '"••r n11.11,rs+---+---➔--+---➔--t----+--t---
12.
Co••
13-
Toa.1.cco, ■-i.ts -----+----+---t---+----1---+------1--+---
17,
S•ur ,or.not::. _ _ __
18,
WMl.t.T
----
-
_______.,..._____,___
o,_,_,__________,,_._
~19~·__
lll'(U ,oa SUD
- - CO
-■- - - ------+
2().
21-
CO•l'~U ,oa "-'-'-----+----+----+-----!----+--➔---+---+---
25.
Pt ou_TO_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .__ _ __.__ _ _,___-+----+----+------<>--+---
26,
SOY H u.=.•----------1-------1---+---+---+---f----+---+---
27, Ous,
CLO't'U
,_._,_,_c_•_-----1.-------1---+---+----t----+---+---+---
28.
29.
31·
::,,uio_,_•_ _ _ ----t-------11----+-----1----+------l---+-➔---
jli,
lOUL CAOl"S
Digtized:iyGoogle
SCHEDULES AND INSTRUCTIONS
1~.
16 ,
A.A.A. Bt•1• 1 TS
255
Cuut11T EouS(S
I T(WS
llllfDLO•D
f!NU TS
■ •Cl
(RlNUL
TO U.L AwOU"IT
HA•OS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Ru IONS 01 Bouo _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
CoTTON
(Pu,,,
CoTTON C..OPPlflG _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
(Rt ■ UL
CofTO• Pie• 1111c _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
fOIACCO
(PUlfT
M1 SClLLAllllOUS
Luo•------------
{R111,u1,,.
Hoo
(P.u1n
AtPAltS, D•lLl I N4i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
(A111U1,.
RU•AIIS, BUNS, FlNClS,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
()'h4EA
IWLIWl
■
TS
(PUtlY
Fu.o,
TOTAL
I•.
LI vt ,,oc•
0..11no1's
OPuuo• 's
S...u
fAMILT UH
'IAL ,
Quu .
VAL ,
Bunu
IIIL•
Suos, nc . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Ft ■ TILIZII,
WAGIS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
fllf1Lllll
SODA
1
T. 6 C- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.uc•t•s
,...,, __________________
E4GS
Po••
Fus, (TC,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
YrTl ■ INAl'f'
Ptooucn
P• IC( Qu .. .
c ■ au
F'tlD, AouG.N&Gl _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
& Po••
P,tQOuCT9
INTIIIST _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Bu,
G1••••'---------------
TOTAL
TQU,L l . . l11SIS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Ho•us _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
CaS11 ,Vff ■ HTT\.11114,
fr ■ AIIIT 1 1
Cow•-------------Cll.v1s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
TO
Ttt••-'----------------
filuLIS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
l•Pt
18 .
■
No,
$NAil 0,
Hs
0,:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
F•WlltlS AOVAlfClO SulS1STOCl _ __
USUAL WO .
AOVAIICl _ _ No . o, was . _ _ __
Pt&S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
NUIIIIHI A80VI
CIIIT ■ AL
WO ■ •STOCll
IA ■•
lfl"T lfl
Qt ''-ITUtfS _ _ _ __
Pto,,t, Ae. 1 ,
MlPT ON
hu ■ T
______
Loss, ....,,r. _ __
lCHS _ _ _ _ _ _ __
______ ... ________
Is
VACMlll(IIT CllfTft,t,1.1,.T
co"n01..1.10 _ _ _ __
Digitized by
Google
256
LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
;:{),
No .. !'lfll Of
lf1Ullf!!i 1 AIID l.t.80A( ■ !!i
Ll'lllllia 011 PL.t.Cl
l,. T.IL
► A.. ll If !I
AND Sia
OF
1
F.t.MILIIS
Ofl'UtATI0111$
rt-
-1-- -
I
t
I
I
ll"D
l!!i
1"1 (AOP"!,
THf ■ l
A PLAJff.UtON eu11,n11o C.ltOUND _ _ _ _ Fu11(U1L fWP(NSf
1.10 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ How O,UII _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
t---l-••-•-",..'-·-·---4
-
-
INTfllfST
P1, ID
Srcua, ,., Awouu
-
ca.
------
Ft:UILIZ(A
-------------- ---<>-----+
l,t(RCHUIT
TOUL
(E'ICLU01111C.
THOSE ro11 CUIUUIIT CAO•)
Awourllll
-----t------11--------i----t
.. ~ ~~ .._,_No_,_,___--+---+------t 1--------i----1
1-'!_P__E~C_O_LIN_T_ _ _ _f - - - - - - - - i - - - - l
l----+------t
--+---+------t I - - - - + - - -...
GOY( RIII_W_<_•_T_ _ _ _
Dig1
zedbyGoogle
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ENUMER,ATING PLANTATION SCHEDULE
First, secure !rom operator a check list of all tenants
who were on plantation in 1934. For those who have moved
away, endeavor to fill tenant schedule from operator's infor-
mation.
Ite• 1.
Enter name of operator (owner or lessee I. By operator is meant the individual (may be corporation or estate) who
receives the rents and landlord crop shares. If the land is
owned by a corporation or estate, enter name thereof above opera tor's name.
Ite• 2.
Enter name of State, county, township, road, and
nearest town, with distance therefrom.
Ite• 3.
Operator's residence refers to 1934 abode. If on
plantation, write ves, otherwise, no. Enter distance from plantation to operator's residence. If operator is not on plantation, de!er enumeration until he can be interviewed.
Ite• 4.
Enter number living in operator's house,exclusive
of servants or lodgers, as of December 31, 1934. If operator
owns other !arms,. enter number of such farms.
!tea 5.
Enter other occupation from which operator derived
an income in 1934 and to which he devoted more than one-fourth
of his time, and enter •approximate proportion of total net annual
income !roa such employment. Enter exact occupation such a.s
"lawyer", "merchant", "mill owner", etc.
Ita 6.
If plantation was acquired by present operator in
one unit, enter method of acquisition, size, and date of acquisition on one line. I! acquired in several parcels, enter size
and date of acquisition of each parcel.
Addtttonal rented: Enter other connecting acreage operated
as a unit with the owned acreage. Plantation total combines
these two.
Ite• 7.
Land rented out:. Enter acres rented out to cash or
standing rent tenants. Land operated is plantation total in
item 6 minus land rented out.
Ite• 8.
Enter values at conservative market value,not low
assessed value or high speculative value. Enter only farm values, Olli tting gins, commissaries, and operator's residence if
saae is not on the plantation. I! operator rents land, buildings, etc • ., enter separately in the margin the value of these
ite115. Do not duplicate values by including the value of items
rented in the value o! items owned.
257
D1g1:zed by
Google
258 LANDLORD AND TBNANT ON TBE COTTON PLANTATION
Itea 9. Enter only houses judged to be habitable, or which
could be made so with S~ or less repair.
Itea 1.0. In subdiYiding land by tenure ot faraer, enter
only crop land, l. e., all land planted to crops in 1934. Total
here should equal crop land in item 11. Do not duplicate laad
planted to two crops. If operator culti'Yates an acreage with
casual labor (not resident wage hands), enter the amount of ,lie
acreage in column "Acres Operated" opposite "Wage Hands" aad
enter 11 0" in column "Number of Faailies.•
rte• 1.1.. Land "In Crops" should equal total of column "Acres
Operated" under item 10. Under "Tillable Land Idle" include all
cultivatable land not in woods and not in use for crops or pasture. Under "Pasture" inchde all pasture land, open and woods.
Under "Waste Land" include swaap land, land occupied bJ buildings, ravines, lakes, etc. The total acres under item 11 shoeld
equal total under item 6.
Ite• 12. Enter under "Hanested Acres" lcol. 11 and "Quantity
Produced" lcol. 21 all plantation crops for 1934 except tlloee
on acreage rented out for cash or standing rent.
For crops sold from plant at ion, enter separately sales of
wage laborer crop, cropper crop, and share tenant crop. Renters•
crop sales are entered only on the Tenant and SumarJ Schedules.
Enter all sales of shared crops, whether sold bJ operator or
tenants, under "Operator's Sales" (col. 31 and'enterunder "Total
Tenant Shares• (col. 5) the value of the tenants' share of tlle
total sales. Tenants' sales of unshared crops are entered oa
tenants' schedules. In case of a shared feed crop, where operator feeds his share aad tenants sell their share, enter tlle
total sales under both column 3 and 5.
Crops fed to livestock should be entered only under colma
land 2; not under coluu 3or 4, Enter under •Operator's Sales•
(col. 31 any 1934 crops held for future sales; enter under "Operator 's Family Use" lcol. 41 any 1934 crop$ or goods processed
frOll crops held for future faailJ use.
Itea 1.2, ltne 35. Enter rent received fr011 land and buildings; do not enter rent receiYed frOll aniu.ls, 11&ehinery, i~
plements, gins, etc. Enter standing rent in terms of 110net&r1
value.
Ite• 1.2, ltM 36. Enter other income fr011 the plantation
and specify. Enter here interest received bJ the operator frca
advances !or subsistence.
rte• 13. Enter rental and parity payments to operator aaci
tenants except renters. Check aaounts reported by operator witll
records of county agent when operator is not certain about tile
amount of benefits he received. Reae■ber tbat in ■anJ instances
seYeral checks were issued, and trJ to guard against Olllissioa.
Check operator's statement of benefits received by tenants ritll
the total benefits report by tenants.
Digitzed by
Google
INS.TRUCTIONS FOR INUMIRATING SCBBDULI
2&9
I t • 14. later separatel7 the Yaheof operator's sales ud
hoae aae of linstock products. If operator does aot reaeaber
aoney retan, eadeaYor to get accarate qaantity and •ltiplJ
by the prnailing 1934 price iD tOVll. Bater as sales auold
1934 prodacts held tor sale; enter as hoae ase uused 1934 prodacts held tor ue, as tor exaaple, canaed goods, etc.
Itea 15. This itea is the total of Operator's Sales Cltea
12, col_. 3, lbe 34), Other Sources of bcoae, Rent Recebed
( Itea 12. liae 35), Other Incoae Cltea 12, 1 i.ne 36), A. A. A.
Beaetits Chea 13, total tor both landlord ud teaantaJ, ud
Operator's LiYestock Prodacts Sales ( ltea 14).
ItM 16. Bater total. expendi tares of operator for curreat
1934 operatioas. Do not include expenditures for capital. i~
proYeaenta, sach as, erections of aew buildiags, fences, drains,
etc. "Waee Buds"-enter wages paid to resident Cnot casualJ
vqe haada. "Rations or Board"-enter oal.7 for restdent W,e
hands. "Cropper Occasional Labor"-eater wages paid to restdent
cropper ud other share tenant faailies. "Iaterest "-enter
interest oa aoaey borrowed to fiaaace carreat 1934 operations:
do aot nter iaterest oa long ten debts. If there is an oYerseer, or if there are other supe"isor, eaployees, enter the
aaouat of salaries paid. Include any other expenses not listed.
"Cash After Settlin,, To Tenants"--enter the difference betweea Total Teaut Shares CItea 12, col. 5, liae 34) and Tenants' Share of &penses plus subsistsc:e adYaaces. Inasauch
as cash due teaaats ■ay be credited agaiut their back debts,
this figare ■q DOt agree with total. reported by operator.
"Tenants I SJaare of Bxpeases "-enter the total aaoant of expenses
paid bJ operator and charged to tenaats.
I t • 17. Inter the aYerage number of horses and ■oles furaished duriag crop year by operator to tesaants-wage hands,
croppers, aad other share tenants. Enter the n1111ber of other
li'l'estock as of Deceaber 31, 1934. Nuaber of wort stock kept iD
central barns or pastures ■eans nuaber tept up by landlord and
assigaed oat to teauta. lept on tenant acres aeans tenant kept
and had practically full tiae use of aai■al. Explanation ot why
feed vu bought should be concrete, such as, "Crop Failure."
· I t • 18. Inter the nuaber of resident fa■ ilies-wage hands,
croppers, other share tenants, and renters-whose liYing expenses
are funished by the operator Cif aerchant or other person instead of operator furnishes tenants, indicate this), either ia
a luap sua or b7 aoathly adYances. In cases where wage hands
ud/or renters are faraished. enter separately in margin. If
interest charees are included iD the total shown as adYances
for sabsisteaae, indicate this. The &1101D1t of interest showa
■ust also be sbOlfll iD line 36 of lte■ 12.
Check whether or not the operator of the plantation bas a
coaissarJ for sappl7ing teauts, re,ardless of whether it is
C1g1• zed by
Google
260 LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
located on the plantation or in town, used exclusively or in
connection with other plantations of same operator or in connection with plantations of other operators; and whether tenants
must use commissary. Profit refers to profit on c0111111issaey.
If plantations other than the one enumerated are se"ed by the
commissllry, enter only the amount of proU t derived fr011 the
plantation enumerated.
Ite• 19. This item refers to the use of plantation or hired
machinery. Enter spring plowing and harrowing, ditching, terracing, etc.
Do not enter ftnntn,.
Ite• 20. Using the list secured from operator of the tenants
resident on the plantation for each of the years 1930 through
1935, enter the nuabe~ of tenants by status and color for each
of these years. Enter the total land in crops for each year,
1930 through 1935.
Ite• 21. Enter the number of times (for example, daily, biweekly, weekly, 1110nthly, etc.I during the crop season operator
visits tenants for supe"ision. After "Emplo1111ent of Overseer
and Other Supervisory EmployeesR, enter number of employees of
the operator who s11pe"ise tenants for hill and in parenthesis
enter the number of persons in the families of these employees.
After "Sitlaries", enter the total amount pa.id to those etllployees.
Itea 22. Soctal Contrtbuttons of Plantattons: Enter under
each item only the money value contrtbuted by operator in money,
goods, or services.
Itea 23. Operator's Debts: Two tables are given for operator's debts. The first {231 is borrowing for current farm ex-·
penses and the second 1241 is for far111 loans made for a longer
period than a year or renewed from last year, If the operator
borrowed the money for 1934 operations or "stands• for the tenants' accounts, enter his transactions under item 23-"Landlord 's
Borrowing for Current Expense.R Do not include loans for personal use. The first column indicates the source of the loan.
If more than one loan is secured from one source, enter below
first loan and bracket the two. Do not duplicate. If fertilizer was bought from merchant on credit, enter under "Amount"
on line with Merchant. Si111ilarly, if 111oney was borrowed from
bank to buy fertilizer. If fertilizer was secured on credit ·
from fertilizer company, enter after Fertilizer. If money was
borrowed to operate a commissary serving several plantations
jointly, endeavor to prorate the proportion of the loan assignable to this plantation.
Under TL•e Used, enter date of borrowing and date of repayment. In case of merchant credit which is taken up at intervals during the crop season, enter average ti111e for which the
account runs except where fertilizer is bought fro111 111erchant,
in which case enter three-fourths of the time the account is
open. Under Interest Patd, eater the actual dollars paid as
Digitized by
Google
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ENUMERATING SCHEDULE
261
interest charge (not 6 percent or 8 percent t, except in merchant
credit enter mnount o! difference between credit price and cash
price.
Under Securttv indicate the manner in which loan was secured,
such as, open account, endorsed note, note crop lien, chattel
mortgage, etc.
The Operator's Debts in the second table should be mutually
exclusive, t.e., it bank holds a mortgage, enter only under mortgage. If bank holds a note, enter a!ter bank. Si■ilarly, i!
governaent agency owns a mortgage, enter after ■ortgage. In
recording aortgage on land, indicate who holds the ■ortgage by
letter lg) !or government agency, (it !or individual, and lb)
!or bank. Unpata borrowings for current 1934 operations should
be shown in item 21 as a debt at end o! 1934,
262 LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THE COTTON PLANTATION
. . . . . . . . . . 2)1
SURVEY Of PUIIT AT IOIIS
DIVISION Of RESEARCH,
STATISTICS ANO FlhANCE
FUIUIII. 1~116lllC'I IIHIIF ADIIINISTAATION
HAUT l . ttoP&lll, A.OMl ■ ISTIHTOI
ColllHTO• GILL, 01HCTOII
TENANT OR LABORER SCHEDULE
lF,u
OM
,oa
ucN ,., .. ,L, 111101•, 01 woau.,
u,u1..HL T 011 ..... Ill
19"')
l,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A&e1 _ _ _ Pl,.,111u.Tto•
2.
S&utl OP caM1: Cono11 _ _ _
lt ■ 'f
.... ACI!
9o.
_______
Stnt _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Coun _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
, . . . . _ _ _ _ _ No•
'•
NuwH ■
eonoa111o ___ cou _ _ _ Toucco _ _ _ OTN1• _ __
o• nus , .... _ _ _ Wow
LONI
-.11 TO TOft UD UCll _ _
9.
7.
Mo.
l.0115 A90VI lfAUt!I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
IIANI lt'f'ID 011 IINCl PUWl ■ Ci_llo.
UI. PHlll.0_
FtNA■ CIAL AIIULTI OP Pa1T 'Yt:AII
( , , ACCUU1TI
UH
ACTUAL
Ptt..u•rs· OTNUWIH CNlCK)
Olll AT IND 0, TU,I
YtH
LOIT
Ev111
GA,11110
TO L,UOLOltO
o, ..,.
19,i
19,,
19•2
19'1
19,:>
12.
L... 0,11.nt•:
c.o,._________ OtNu _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
P1aa _ _ _ _ Pout. TU _ _ _ __
llf
Al!L I IP IICOIO
fllTI ■ AcTUM. liloNTttl
AMoUIIT
Yeu
RtLIIP'
Rn 11,
RtNAIILITUIN
RtHIILIT.ITIDII
195)
l!WI
19',
1,.
......
·J6.,
-- ■
I■
PMIILT _ _ _ _ _ _ _
&aLI TO •LP
WIT ■
SIITII ■
HO
owu:
MALl _ _ _ _ _ FtW&&.t _ _ _ __
•UM_,.. ______________________
Digitized by
Google
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ENUMERATING SCHEDULE
--.
--. -. ,
17.
..........
ACHa
~
(a,
_ ...,
Qaan,n
,_
,.,.
. ~.,·-·....
(Au. .......
-•T. ""-·
-•T•
,....
A.A.A.
""'
___
S..IT ,au-•
Coell
,.
....,_____
-
L•-
MtL•
....
l■na
......
.,,,, ___
...., ..... u ...- - rin11.
11 •
OINA&TI- . . . . _
...........
L-11•
...
fUTILIUll
,
.......
... .
. . . . . . . . . IT . . . . . . . . .
-..... .
-·--·
,_,
....
,........
___
,
••
Jlllllffl-:
Dig1.,zed by
Google
Digitized by
Google
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ENUMERATING
TENANT OR LABORER SCHEDULE
Fill one schedule for each tenant and laborer family resident
on this fan in 1934 and try to get operator's estimates on
1934 operations of tenants who have moved away since last year.
Consider as resident only tenants with crop agreement, laborers who are allowed a house and employed monthly, or other laborers or displaced tenants who are allowed a house but have no
employment off the plantation furnishing the majority of their
inc011e.
/tea 1.
Race: Record only white or Negro, using letters
Wand N. Plantation number should agree with tract number on
corresponding Plantation Schedule, and should preferably be
entered at the time when the Plantation Schedule is numbered.
/tea 2.
Rental adree11ent, 1934: Enter 1/2 cotton, 1/3 corn,
or other proportions according to what share of each crop the
tenant receives.
Itea 3.
Bouse fenure, 1934: Refers toarrange111ent ■ade with
laborers without a regular agreement, or tenants without a crop,
t.e., a laborer housed on plantation or displaced tenant allowed
use of house in return for casual jobs or small lllOney rent, or
old couple allowed rent free. Enter "rent free", "rent in return for odd jobs", etc. ·
Itea 4.
1934 Status: Enter renter, share tenant, cropper,
wage band, Rehabilitation, resident no-contract. (See definitions in "Instructions to Enumerators" l. To be deter111ined by
enuaerator on basis of 2 and 3.
/tea 5.
Ate: Enter as of birthday in 1934. How lont on
thts far• refers to length of residence on the plantation as of
1934. Enter nearest whole number years only. If tenant has
1110ved away and has come back without !arming in the interim,
enter the total years !armed on this plantation. If he has
occupied another plantation in the interim, enter only last
continuous occupancy of this plantation.
Itea 6.
Enter number of ti■es tenant has 1110ved to town and
back since be started farming.
!tea 7.
luaber of farms Occupted: Enter the nU111ber of
plantations occupied by tenant, plus the number of places he
has fanied as an owner. Nuaber of rears far•ed: Enter total
years of tenant's faming experience since age 16.
265
Digitized by
Google
266 LANDLORD AND TENANT ON
TRI
COTTON PLANTATION
Its• 8.
Enter total rears in each status since 16 rears
of age, regardless of whether continuous or not.
Ite• 9.
Get exact end resulu if tenant's ■ eaorr seelUI
tnstworthr, t.s., lost 157, or made 1150. Gain is cash after
set tU ag, plus subsistence adYanced, plus sales of anallared crops
and lhestoct, plwa A.A.A., plus wqea, ■in11s unshared e1pea11fl.
In other words, the tenant 11&7 c011e out owing the landlord PO
but if he bas been adYanced U!SO for subsistence his 1ah is
1100. Debt includes chattel ■ortgages, balance anpaid oa preYious adYances for Hbsistence, and bills dae doctor, Mrcllaats,
etc.
JO. Cull after settli•i is a■ollllt operator owd tnut
after sellia, ud dhiding 1934 crops ud dedllcth1 tnut 's
share of fan erpeases ud sabsistence adYancea, or it ■a, be
the a■ount the tenaat owes tile operator u a reaalt of tile 19M
operation. The a■o1Hlt of tllis ••ttl•eat applied to debt ■ of
preYioas rears operation is not sabtracted froa this settl--t
bat ntered below.
JJ. b recording adYances eater anra,e 110atlllr adnaces,
nuber of ■o•ths tlle adYaace was allowed, extras allowd abcn'e
aYerage ■O11thl1 adYaace, ud total adYuces for the rear.
Ite• 1a. Enter total land operated br tenaat, ad crop lud,
land plaated ill crops, iacladilli ha, crops.
HM J3. Exclude plantation oned liYestoct ud aai■als
eaten or sold during the rear. Record olllr those ani■als on
hand at the end of 1934.
Its■ U.
Get reneral state11e11t of this record fr011 tenat
and check later with Countr Relief Adainistration.
Its• 15. Bntertotalpersons in house on December 31, 1934Enter the nu■ber of those l& and oYer br sex, inclllclia1 bead of
household.
16. Refers to ■ •ber of persons 16-64 rears of a,e of
both sexes, including bead of household, able to perfon fall
da,'s labor.
I t • J7. Crops sold need onlr be entered for renters aaless
other te11&11t does not sell crops thro111h landlord. Eater aaoHt
sold and price, and ■ultlplr for Yalue. Do aot lncl11de sale of
crops carried oYer ftOll earlier rears. In cue of crops produced i.n 1934 and held for fatare sale, enter at a·Hra,e 1934
price. Enter all crops conH■ed br failr and caHed for fllt11te
consumption. Cnit crops fed to liYe stock.
I t • JB. Enter oalr for reater or teaut aot adYanced these
i teas br landlord.
Its■ J9.
Tenut inc011e ls total of cash after aettliar, adYances for subsistence, A.A.A., boae 11se prodacts, sales of 1111allared ct-ops and wa,es minus unshared e1penses.
It••
It••
t.,.,
It•
DigtizedbyGoogle
DEFINITIONS OF TENURE STATUS
1.
2.
3.
4.
¥0,e Hand-An indh'idual (with or without a famil7l
who
lins on the plantation and has a definite agreement with
the operator to wort for a more or le9s definite number of
aonths at an qreed wqe.
Cropper-A faai17 whicb has a definite agreement with the
operator wbereb7 the faail7 furnishes only labor (operator
finishes wort stock and implements I in cultivating an agreed
upon acrea,e and receives in return a specified share of
tile crop, usuall7 one-half share or less.
OtMr ShaN ,enant-A fami17 which has a defilli te agreement
with a landlord wbereb7thefami17 furnishes SOtlle or all of
the 110rt stock and i ■plements in culth'ating an agreed upon
acrea,e and receiTes in return a share of the crop, usual.17
110re than oae-balf.
Cash Renter-A f•ilr which pays cash for tile use of the
laad.
D.
6.
Stand.tn, Renter-A f•il1 which has a definite agreement
with the operator whereb7 the f•ilr pqs a specified amount
of crop produce Uor example, 4 bales of cotton, 800 pounds
of tobacco, etc. l and which operates independentl7 of the
operator.
Dtsplaced renant-A family in house without crop or definite
110rk qreement and without regular outside emplo7111ent which
receh'es house rent free or in SOiie instances 1ives a specified a■ount of labor in lieu of rent, but which has no defiDi te qreeaen t with a landlord to f ann a crop or to wort for
wqes for a specified period of time. Such a famil7 mq be
allowed to culth'ate a 1arden and crop patches but must depend upon casual labor for a cash inc011e.
lot,:
A r1bu111tat1on client wu handled u a cub renter.
Dig tized by
Goos le
268 LANDLORD AND TENANT ON THI COTTON PLANTATION
SU!VtY C/F ,u11TATIOIS
OIYISIOI C/F IIESUIIOf,
FEDUAl EIIEACINCY AEllEf AOIIIN ISTRlllOI
Na.aa, L - Ho• ■ 111s, lo.t ■ IIUAICNt
SlATISTICS lllD FIN.IIIC(
C.01:111•10. &u.L, 01 . .
c,•
SUWAARY SCHEDULE
il'LUfllTIGa . . . . . .,_ _ _ __
eo..a ..,. " ' - - - - - - -
o,,
•• Pu.• ur10■ Gtots S.UID CASN I.CC)llltf
I.
U. lA ■kOIII MovSINOLD
f»l.1o■ ,u10. S..•110
E•H•H• ho,M.)
c.
HOUMNOLII
PLA ■ UTIOII Nu S..a110
( &
T1•&atS 1 u• la10Ha1'
V. TOTAL
(16)
•••vi 8)
D.
LA ■ILOIID, NOMI I.Jal
L
ToUL T1 ■ .ur H01t1 U11
cu...
l ■ c<NI
..
fOTU. P\.MT,UI- ltonLAflC)II
..
(-.C•• t ■ co,,..-L( fl 11 Al\.
Pta CAPlfA IIICOIII
Y,
Tc ■au
z.
Tt ■ ,Uf
.,.......
i
E•N ■ N
u ■ un AH ■ OT l ■ IUlllUTID)
N1T IIIC(II •UH Y)
F. TOTAL IIICc..i
8. luut 5oo4H
M.
Tru ■,
0#
A.A.A. ( 13)
AA. (Z
....
IB.
S..u1 o, Cao,1
PLUS
( )2 l.AST COL.)
D)
CX:. IKOMI Pu,a Wa.&1a
I. T! ■ UT S..u10 CASN I IICOIII
J.
Tt ■ A ■ T
Oto, uo
l1V1SfOC1t SALM
00. 61011 CA• IIICCIIII
(A Pl.ua J)
(17)
EE.
•• T1u11r S"ur
(16)
PLUU.TIO■ C1 ■D
(0
0# hPf ■ SCS
PLUS
FF. PLA ■ Ulto■
(00
" ·
PLUS
Tout. laccaa
EE)
l ■ COltAf
, . . . . . ,. Tout.
(L f'lllS J
l ■cCMI
E)
PLUS
E)
Htl . VALUI LA■ I ,aa Ac ..
N. 11! T L.001,.0•0 CASN I ■ COWi
(C•••vsl)
11. P11c1•t Caor l•• • •
ConON
0. IIT lo01.0111D fOUL IIICOIM:
(N
-.ua D)
P. Yu.ul. LIS&
QfSIOl!NCI
U: .
T1u ■ t
(8)
0. Su Pt ■ ct ■ T Oil VALUf
N11 IIICGII Na
r... ,u
z
i!""=2TI
E ■ u- ■ AICNIS Clllllf ITIIII 00
,o
IO(.
A. La1oa l11CClill uo ho,1,
(D NIOUI Q)
Digitized by
Google
ll8TRUCTIOl8 FOR
It••
n ..
1,u
It ..
Itu
ltea
H••
H••
smouat
SCHEDULE
ltea l& on Plantation Schedule.
Total of Ite■ 16 on Plaatatioa Schedule.
S11btract B frca A. It B is 1reater tllaa A, sabtract
A trca B and place a ring aroand Itea C.
D. Collbiae totals of •Operator's Faaily Use• Coluaa, I tea
12 aad 14 on Plaatation Schedule.
I. Total of •B011e Use• colaan froa Ite■ 17 on Teaaats'
Schedules.
P. C plus D plus E.
G. Total of ■Tenants• colUIIUl frca Ite■ 13 on Plantation
Schedule.
8. Total of 11Total Tenaat Shares• collllUl fro■ ltea 12 on
Plaatation Schedule.
1. G plus H.
J. Total of •Crop Sold" colu■n fran Item 17 on Tenants'
· Schedules.
l. Prom Ite■ 16 on Plantation Schedule.
1,u L. I
■inus
I.
L plus J plus E.
l&u I. C aiaus L.
1,.. O. N plus D.
Iiu P. •Total Value• froa Itea 8, less value of operator's
residence if residence is oa plaatation., OD Plaatation
Schedule.
Ha Q. Six percent of P.
1'uR. 0 ainus Q.
s. Total of first four liaes fr011 Itea 10 oa Plantation
Schedule.
1,u 1. Divide R 07 S.
1's■ U.
I tea 4 plus nuaber of persons ia household of overseer,
etc., frca ltea 21, Plaatatioa Schedule.
1,.. Y. Total of Item l& frca Tenants• Schedules.
1,ea r. U plus V.
1,•• r. Divide CC by V.
Jiu r. Total of Item 18 frca Tenants• Schedules.
l&u
M ■iaus T.
1,u AA. Z plus 0.
BB. Total wages lwqes ud rations to wage hands, wqes to
croppers, aad wqes to overseer ud/or otller supervisory
eaplo7eest frca ltea 16 on Plaatation Schedule.
I&u l.
Ii••
z.
Ii••
o,g,
zea by
Goog Ie
2'10
LANDLORD AID TIIANT ON TII COTTON PLAITATION
AA plu D.
DD. A plus J.
II. D plus I.
Iiu CC.
Ite■
lie■
It•• rr. DD pl1s II.
Iiea 00. DiYide PP bJ P.
Hea BB. DiTide •Valae of Laad• frCIII It• 8 br -Total Owaed•
froa ltea 6, Platatioa Scbedale.
Uu II. DiTide •Cottoa .Acrea,e• froa It• 18 br total aUlber
of acres, first tbree U.aea froa It• 10, Plutatiaa
Schedule.
Iiu JJ. Hu ll. Divide z bJ total Haber of f•iliea, first t~ree liHS,
ltea 10, PlantatiOll Scbedale.
D1g1:zed by
Google
INDEX
Digitized by
Google
Dig 112ed y
Goos IC
INDEX
Absentee ownership •.•••.•••..•••••••••.••••••••
Advances, subsistencecompared with relief grants ••.•••••••.••.•••
to tenan.ts ................................. .
Acreage distributionby date of acquisition ••.•••••••••••.•••.•••
by size of tracts .......................... .
changes in .•••••.•...•.••••••••.•••.••••.•.•
crops,
woods,
pasture,
idle,
waste,
168-169
59, 63
199
18-19
157-158
per
plantation . .............................. .
See also:
21-23, 200
M,-36, 206
Crops.
Acresidle ti liable . ............................. .
operated on plantations •••••••••••••••••••••
Ageof farmers, related to mobility •••••••••••••
of heads of plantation families, relief and
non-relief, by tenure ••••••••••••••••••••.
of Negroes in Michigan, by sex ••••••••••••••
Agricultural Adjustment Acteffect on income of cotton grower •••••••••••
impetus for diversification of crops ••••••••
Agricultural Adjustment Administration paflllentsvalue of to plantations .••••••••••••••••••••
to tenants ............................... .
158,159
36
109-112
164
232
41
48
66-67
87
Areas surveyedcounties included in ...•.•.•••.••••..••••...
249
location of ................................ .
3-5
3-5
3-5
3-5
number o! . ..•.•...•..•.•.•....••••..•.......
size of plantations in •.......••.•••••••..••
tenancy rates in ....•....•.••.•••...••••..••
Asch, Berta:
far■
fa■ tltes
on Reltef and
Rehabt l t tat ton ..• ....•.••.•••••••••••.•.••
Bankhead-Jones Bill, program proposed ••••••••••
Banksdeposits in cotton States •••••••••••••••••••
sources of landlord credit ••••••••••••••••••
Banks, E. M.:
lconoatcs of Land rerwre tn
Georffa...................................
273
146n, 169n
190
41, 208
54-55, 212
17n, lfln.,
24n
INDBI
274
Beck, P. G. and Forster:
Stx Rural
Problea
Areas •••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Blackwell, Gordon W.Dt sp laced f'enan t fan, 1'c:a tl v t n North Caroltna. f'lie .•.•.••.•.••••••.••• .••••••••.•..
145D, 151a,
16811.
145n, 155n,
161n.
Rural Reltef 1'catltes tn Korth Caroltna •••••
Boeger, 8. A. and Goldenweiser: Stud.II of the
renant Systeas of 1'anttn; tn the razooltsstsstppt Delta, A •••••••••••••••••••••
Boll weevileffect on cotton production •••••••••••••••••
impetus for diversification of crops ••••••••
Bnnnen, C. 0.: Relation of Land 'l'enure to
PLantqtton Or~anizatton •••••••••••••••••••
Brooks, R. P.: Aerarian Reuolutton tn Geortta,
The • ••.•..•....•...•.•••..••..••.•••.••••.
176D
9n' 10n
38-39
47
31n
9n
Childreneducation of ... ............................ .
enrollment in public schools ••••••••••••••••
large proportion in Southeast •••••••••••••••
number as Wllge and unpaid workers in cotton
130-134
128-129
129
States ........ ........................... .
142
ratio to women in cotton States •••••••••••••
Clothing-
7, 195
of tenant families ......................... .
101
purchases •••••••••••...•...•••••••••••..••••
Commissaries, plantations with and use of ••••••
101, 102
Communication facilities of tenants ••••••••••••
Conservation of soil, tenant system retards ••••
Constructive measures, related to tenant system
31, 203
104-105
186
and cotton economy .•.••••••.••••••••••••.•
179-191
Contributionsof landlords •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 31-33, 204-205
church, school, and entertainment.........
32, 204
legal... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32, 3J5
medical...................................
31-32, aJ4
social ••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••• 31-33, 204-205
transportation. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • •
32, 205
Corn37
acreage devoted to ••••••••••••••••••.•.•.••.
production for home use .••••••••••••••••••••
37
Corporationsland held by •.••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••
20, 198
types of holding plantations, and acreage
held . .................................... .
52, 211
Dig 112ed y
Goos IC
INDEX
Cottonacreage, by groaps of States ••••••••••••••••
culture, trends in ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
price-
275
38
38-46
cycle .•••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••• •
3
ratio to cost of living •••••••••••••••••••
productionaffected by A.A.A., boll weevil, and World
War ..................................... .
40, 208
cycle •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
disorganization of ••••••••••••••••••••••••
specialization, in relation to income •••••••
yield per acre, by tenure of families •••••••
Counties, included in areas surveyed •••••••••••
Creditamount used by croppers •••••••••••••••••••••
47-48
3, 38-40
39-40
74-75, 217
88-89
24~
215
foreclosures ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
52-53
governmental lending agencies •••••••••••••••
interest ratesto landlords •••••••••••••••
55-59
to tenants ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
long tenn indebtedness, landlords' ••••••••••
reform, reaches tenant indirectly •••••••••••
short term creditot landlords •.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
of tenants ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
system, on plantations ••••••••••••••••••••••
53-55, 212
61-64, 215
50, 210
188
53
59
4~64
sources of ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
54-59, 212
tenant debts ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
60-61, 215
trends ...................................... .
Loans; Mortgages.
Cropsacreage inby areas ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
50-52
See also:
26
19, 157-158
diversification of ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
47-48
affected by A.A.A., boll weevil, and World
47-48
War •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
not to landlords' advantage •••••••••••••••
187
expenditures for............................
28-29, 3)2
land in, and average per family ••••••••••••• 35-37, 3:>6-207
one-crop sys tea •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
35-4&
production for h0111e usei DCOllle from •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
46, 67, 221
shortage of •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
46, 102-104
changes of ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
INDEX
276
Crops (continued)
production for home use (continued)
valueto plantations .•.•.••••..••..••••••••.••
to tenants .....•.........•.....•.....•..
sale of, as source of plantation income •••••
Death rate, in rural sections, from typhoid and
paratyphoid, pellagra, and malaria ••.•••••
Dettslandlords', long term .•..•..•••.•••••.••.•••
66-67
102-104, 221
66-67
105-106, 230
tenants' ................................... .
two types of .•..•....•••••••...............•
Credit; Loans; Mortgages.
Dependence1 andlord and tenant •.•.••••••.••••••.•••••••
related to incomes .•...•••.••.•......•..•..•
Diboll, Celeste G. and Faust: Jfalarta lfortality
50, 210
60-61, 215
49
See also:
87-90
222
tn the Southern United States for the rear
J.933 •••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Dorothy:
Study of food Habt ts of
People tn Two Contrasttne Areas of Jftssissiopt, A•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
105n
Dickens,
Diet, tenants', nutritional value of .••..••.•••
See also: Food.
Diversification of crops: see Crops.
Du Bois, W. E. B.: Ne~ro Landholder of Georgta,
104D
104
T/1e •.••••.••.•.•..••••••••••••••••••••••• •
12
Educationnecessary for agrarian reconstruction .••••.•
181-182
of plantation families ••.•..•••.••.•••.•..••
125-144
enrollment, attendance, grades completed .•
128-132
illiteracy •....•••.•...•.•..••••••..•.••••
126-128, 233
public attitude toward .•.•.•...••.•••••.•.
140-144
school term, length of .•..••.•.••....•..••
132-134
scbools, financial support to •.......•••••
139-140
teachers' salaries and training ••...••••.•
134-139
Emergency Crop Production and Seed Loansamount and number of •.•.••...•••••...•••••.• 56-57, 213-214
Employability, and size, of plantation families
by relief status and tenure ................ .
164-166
Enterprises, non-agricultural .•.•••••••.•••••••
31
Equipment of dwellingscooking facilities ••••.•••.••••••.•••.•..••.
100-101, 229
sanitary facilities •.•.••.•••.••.•••••••••••
98-100, 228
98, 226
screens .•.•...•............•...•......••.•.•
98-100, 227
source of water ............................ .
Erosion, in the Southeast ..................... .
43-46
28-29, 202
Expenses, crop, per plantation •.•••••..••.••.••
Dig tized by
Google
INDEX
27'
Faailiesasset to plantations .•.•••••••••••••.••...•.
age of heads, relief and non-relief; by
tenure •••••••••.•.••••.•••••..•••.••••...•
capability of, for rehabilitation •••••••••••
debts of ••••• ••....••••.••.•.•.••••••..•••..
employability of members, size of and •••••••
financial results of, by tenure ••••••••••.••
number resident on plantations, by areas ••••
change in, 1930-1935 ••••••••••••••••••••••
rehabilitation advances to ••••••••••••••••••
relief, incidence of, by months and tenure
relief benefits per family •••••••••.••••••••
relief status of, by areas ••••••••••••••••••
by tenure ................................ .
size of, and employability of members •.•••••
Farll!s-
5-6
164
175-177
60
164-165
215
28
157
171-173, 240
163-164, 238
166-169, 240
161-162
162-163
164-165
land in, in Southeast ••••.••••••••••••••••••
number liv-ed on, by plantation families, by
tenure, age, farmin~ experience •••••••••••
by relief families in North Carolina ••••..
Farm Credit Act, organized product ion credit
15-17
system .•••. ••••••.•••••••.......•....•....
Suruey
of Cases Re11oued frOII Relief Rolls in
Seuenteen Rural Counttes tn Geortta for Ad•tntstrattue Reasons tn Nay and June 1935.
Faust, E. C. and Diboll: Nalarta Nortaltty in the
Southern Untted States for the Year 1933••
55
110
113
Farnham, Rebecca, McGill, and Hayes:
Feed, expenditures tor per.plantation ••••••••.•
Fertilizerconsumption on plantations .•••••••••••.•••••
expenditures per plantation •••••••••..•...••
loans . ....•.................................
Food of tenant familiesdomestic animals for ••••••••••••••••••••••••
home use production of ••••••••••••••••••••.•
kind purchased ..........•...................
Foreclosures . ................................. .
Forster, H. C. and Beck:
Stx Rural Probl e,a Areas.
Gardens, use of by tenants •••••••••••••••••••••
152n
105n
2ce
41-43
2ce
212
103-104
102-104
101-102
52-53
145n, 151n,
168n.
102
Status of Teachers and
GaW1ni tz, Walter H.:
Prtnctpals E11ployed tn the Rural Schools of
the Unt ted States •••••••••••••••••••••••••
Goldenweiser, E. A. and Boeger: Study of the
Tenant Systeas of Fanatne tn the Yamo-Hts-
134n, 135n
stsstppt Delta, A•••••••••••••••••••••••••
9n, lOl
Digitized by
Google
278
INDEX
Goodrich, Carter and Others: JtttrattonandEconomtc Opportuntty ••.••.•••••.••••..••• ••••
180n
Government agencies, sources of landlord credit. 54, 55-59, 212
Hamilton, Horace C.: Relation of the Atrtcultural Adjust111ent ProtrM to Rural Rel tef
Needs tn North Caroltna, The ••.••.••••••••
119n
Hayes, Grant, McGill, and Farnham: Survey of
Cases Re111oued from Rel tef Rolls tn Seventeen Rural Count Les tn Geort ta for Adllltntstrat tue Reasons tn /fay and June 1935 ••.•
152n
Healthdeath rate in rural sections, from typhoid
and paratyphoid, pellagra, and malaria •.••
105-106, 230
of tenant families ••••••..•••.•.•.••.••••.••
105-106
relation between low income and malaria mortality .•.•.••.•.•.•.•••.•••••.••....•••...
105
Hobbs, S. H.,Jr.: Untverstty of North Carolina
Newsletter December 5, 1935 •••••.•••..••••
154n
Hoffsommer, HaroldEducatton and Rehabtlttation tn Alabama farm
Households Recetvint Relief .••.•••.••.••.•
12811
Landlord-Tenant Relations and Reltef tn Alab(];IJla ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
llln, 150n,
152n
Holdingsby Negroes .•••.•••••.••.••••..•.•••••.••••.•
24
method of acquisition .•.••.••••..••••.••.•.•
20
size of •..•••.••••.•••..•••.••••.•..••...•••
17-19, 196
See also: Plantations; Proprietorships.
Home use productionincome from ..•••.•.•..••....•••••.•.•.••..•.
221
shortage of ................................ .
46-47
valueto plant at ions ..•••..••.•.•••••••.••••.•••
66-67
to tenants ............................... .
102-104, 221
Housingequipment of dwellings ...................... 98-101, 226-229
number farm houses surveyed in cotton States
by Farm Housing Survey ...••••.•.•.•..••.•.
223
occupants per room, by color and tenure ...••
97, 225
of plantation families ••...•..........••••.•
92-101
plantations with vacant houses .•....••..•.•.
158
rooms per dwelling, by color and tenure of
occupants .................•..•..•.•.......
225
size of dwellings .......................... .
97-98, 225
types of dwellings, by tenure .............. .
95-97, 224
value of farm dwellings,in cotton States and
geographic divisions of U. S.••..•••..••••
92-96, 223
in cotton States, by color and tenure •••••
94
D1gt1zedoyGoogle
INDEX
279
Some Types of Unemployabtltty
tn Rural Reltef Cases, February 1935 ••••••
Hulett, J.E., Jr.:
Illiteracyin the Southeast ••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•
of population 10 years and over by color and
21 years and over by sex, for all States ••
Incomeby percent acres in cotton •••.•••.••..••••••
drawn in advance by tenants .••.••.••••••••••
from home use production, per family ••••••••
on plantations •••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••
by type of operations ••••••••••...••••••••
factors related to ••••.•••.••..•••.•..••••
gross .................. • ................. .
net ...................................... .
per capita . .............................. .
to tenants Md laborers ••••••••.•••••••••••.
distribution over year ••••.•••••.•.•••••••
netby areas ............................... .
by value per acre •••••••••••••••••••••••
net cash • .•••.....•.•.•..•................
See also: Plantation income; Tenants, income.
Indebtednesslandlords', long term ••••••••••••••••••.••••
tenants• ••••••.•••.•.......•...••••••.•••...
See also: Credit; Loans; Mortgages.
Interestexpenditures per plantation ••••.••••••••••••
rates ofto landlords ••••••••.•••.••••••.••••••.•..
to tenants ............................... .
reason for high rates ••••.••.•••••••.•••••••
Investment, landlords' ••••••••••••••••••••.•••.
Johnson, O. M. and Turner: Old Plant at ton Pted1110nt Cotton Belt, The ................... ..
152n
126-128
233
84-85
59, 63
221
65-90
9g
73-75
66-68, 216
68-70, 216
70-73
82-87
91-92
83-84, 220
84-85, 221
85-87
50, 210
60-61, 215
202
53-55, 212
61-64, 215
49
28, 201
22n
Kirkpatrick, E. L.: farffl.er's Standard of Ltvtn~.
'!he . ..................................... .
Laborincome from, to operators ••.•••••••.•.•••••.
surplus in plantation areas •••••••••.••••.••
system retards education ••••..••••••••••••••
Landin fat"llls, trend in the Southeast ••••••••••••
and soil erosion in the South ••••••••••.•••.
submarginalretirement programs ••••••••••••••••••••••.
effect on owners and tenants ••••••••.•••
effect on production of cash crop •••••••
Dig,
97n
78-79, 88-89,
219, 222.
6
142-144
15-17
44-46
185-186
185
186
zedbyGoogle
280
INDEX
LandlordsA. A. A. payments to ............•...•......•..
66-67
attitude toward education .................. .
140-142
interest rates to .....................•..••.
53-55, 212
long term indebtedness of .•...•.••..••......
50
managerial functions of ..•...••...••.•.•••.•
26-29
relationship to tenants .•.••..•........•••..
9-11
short term credit of ..•.•..••...•...•...••.•
53
social contributions of •.......•..•.•...••.. 31-33, 204-205
See also: Operators.
32, 205
Legal aid given to tenants .................... .
Legislation, State, proposals for protection of
185
tenants ......•...••.....•.•.•..•..••....••••
Literacy, see Illiteracy.
Livestock103-104
food for tenants .....•...•.•.....••.••••••.•
on plantations ...••.•...•....•••••••••...•••
47, 209
Loansby Production Credit Associations, number,
amount, and size of ..................... ..
55-56, 213
F.mergency Crop Production and Seed Loans,
amount and number of ....•.•••.•.•..••.•.•• 56-57, 213-214
212
for fertilizer .••.•.........•...•...••.•..
See also: Credit; Mortgages.
Location, of plantation areas surveyed ......••.
3, 6, 249
Lowe, R. C.: Leg is lat tue Trends tn Pub l tc Rel tef
and Asststance Dece•ber 31, 1929 to July 1,
1936 .•.••. ••.•.••••.•••.• , ••••••••••.••••.
Malariadeath rate in rural sections •••••.•••...•.••
mortality relation to low income ..•...••••••
Management and organization of plantations, see
Organization and management.
Mangus, A. R.-
151n
105-106, 230
105
Chanttnt Aspects of Rural Reltef ••••.•••••••
Reltef Htstory, Kay to October 1934., of Rural
and Town Re l t e f Cases ••..••..••••..••.••••
Rural Netro on ~elief, February 1935, The •••
152n,
Trend of Rural Rel tef, October 1933-0ctober
1934., The •••••••••••••.•••••..••••.•••••••
Type and Yalue of Reltef Recetued by Rural
and Town Cases, October 1934. ..•••••• ••••••
and Standing: Workers and Dependent Ate Groups
tn Rural and Town Rel tef Cases tn October
1934. ••••••••••••••••.•••••••.•••••••••••••
McCormick, T. C.: Co11parattue Study of Rural
Rel tef and Non-Rel tef Households •....••••• 114n, 13Ch,
146n
1681l
168n
152n
1681l
151n
131n,
148n, 159n, 16&1.
Dig tized by
Google
INDEX
281
McGill, K. R., Haye~, and Farnham:
Survey of
Cases Re,,,oued from Rel tef Rolls tn Seventeen Rural Count tes tn Geortta for Adnttntstrattue Reasons tn Nay and June 1935 ••••
152n
31-32, 204
54-55, 212
Medical aid given to tenants .••.•••••••••.•.•••
Merchants, source of landlord credit ••••••••..•
Hereness, E. H.: fantt Norttate Loan lxpertence
tn Southeast AlabCJJlla ••••••••••••••••••••••
52n
243-246
Method and scope of study •••••••••••••••••..•..
Higrationbenefi t to Southern population ..•••••••••••.
in rural South •••••••••••••••••.•••••••.••••
See also: Mobility.
Mobilityamong fanners in cotton South •••••••••••••••
factors related to and types of movements ...
movesdi stance of • .......•.••••••••.•••••••••..•
from f ann to f ann •...••••••••.•••••••••.••
occupational, tenure and ••••••••••••.•.•••••
of Negroes ••.••..•.•...•••••••••.•..•••....•
related to size of family .................. .
residence, change of by status ••••••••••••••
retards education of children •••.••••••.••••
rural-urban ................................ .
179-181
7-8
107-124
107
115
107-110
119-121, 231
123-124
108-109
110-114
143
121-123
tenure statuschange of •••••.•.••.•••.•••••••••••.••••••
115-121
115-119
years 1n ........ . ........................ .
See also: Migration.
Hortgagesfrequency, by tenure of operator •••••..•••••
of landlords ••••.••.•.••••••••••••.....••..•
ratio to value of.fat"llls ••.••••••••••••.•••••
51, 211
50, 210
51, 211
50-52
trends ..... ................................ .
See also: Credit; Foreclosure~.
Nattonal Resources Board Report ••••••••••••••••
Negroesage of, by sex, in Michigan ••••••••.•.....•.
education in the Southeast ••••••.•••••••••.•
illiteracy among ••••••••••••••••••••..•...••
mobility of •.••..••••.•.••••••••••••.•....••
ownership by, and size of holdings •••••.••••
plantations, percent operated by ••..•.•••..•
rehabilitation loans to •••••••••••••••.•..•.
relief grants per family •.•••••••••.•••.•...
rise in status of .......................... .
schoolattendance .•...•......•••.••••••••••.....•.
46D
232
128-134
128, 233
123-124, 231
23-24
10, 196
173
167-168
11-13
D1g1 :ed by
130
Google
INDEX
282
Negroes (continued)
school (continued)
tem, length of •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
132-134
131
grade at t ai nmen ts . ..................•.....
teacherssalaries by percent Negroes in population.
138
138
training . ................................ .
tenure of fann operators ••••••••••••••••••••
Non-agricultural. enterprises •••••••••••••••••••
Nutrition, of tenants' diet ••••••••••••••••••••
See also: Food.
Occupationchange, of plantation families .•••••.•••••••
current and usualof heads of rural cases receiving relief
and under care of rural rehabilitation
154-155. 2:36
31
104
prog rant ...............•.....•....•..•...
173,174
159-160
121-124, 231
of rural relief households •••••..•••••••••
See also: Tenure.
Odum, Howard W.: Southern Rettons •••••••••••••
One-crop system .••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••.•
Operation•
characteristics of plantation •••••••.•••••••
large vs. small scale, trends •••••••••••••••
183D
35-48
184
183-184
16-17
systems on plantations ......•............•..
See also:
Org ani zat ion and
management.
Operatorsincome of . ........................•.........
gross cash .. ••.••.••••....•.•••••••••.•••.
net ...................................... .
net cash ••• .•...•.•.••••.••••••••.•.••••••
tenure and color of, in cotton States •••••
Landlords.
Organization and managementmanagerial functions of landlord .•••••••••••
non-agricultural enterprises ••••••••••••••••
75-82
75-77
77-80, 218
fl>-82
154-155. 236
See also:
26-30
31
of plantations ............................. .
25-33
size of operations •....•.•..•...••••.•......
social cont ri but ions ••••••••••••••••••••••••
Ownership-
31-33
absentee •••.••.•..•••..•..••..••••••••••••••
method of acquisition •••••••••••••••••••••••
11.ul t iple •••.••.••..•••.•..••.•......••••..••
Negro . .•.••••••••••••.•••••••..•.•••••••••.•
of plantations ............................. .
proposals for promotion of .•••••••••••••••••
related to mobility of farmers ••.•...•..••..
size of boldi ng . ........................... .
trend i u .. ...................•....•.........
turnover in ................................ .
Digitized by
25-26
21-23, 200
20, 120
19-20, 197
23-24
15-24
189-191
111-114
17-19
17-21
20-21
Google
INDEX
283
Pellagra, death rate from in rural sections ••••
PlantationsA. A. A. payaen ts to ••••••••••••••••••••••..••
acquisition, •ethod of, by date •••••••••••••
crop expenditures of ••.•••••••.•••.••••.••.•
faailies, number resident on ••••••••••••••••
general size of, by area,,, •••••••••••••••••
105-105, 230
incCJ11e of ••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
1811.d use in •..•..•••.••..•...•...••.•••..•..
location, nu■ber in sample, •••••••••••••••••
organi~ation and management of ••••••••••••••
65-75, 216
35-36, 206
6, 195
25-33
ownership of ..............•.................
15-24
size ofin relation to income •••••••.•••••••••••.•
operation ................................ .
proprietorships .................... -...... .
teauts, number of per ..........••....•.....
value of ................................... •
Plantation areascharacteristics of . ........................ .
population trends and labor in •• , •••••••••••
sa"eJed .. ................................. .
Plantation incomeby type of operations •••••••••••••••••••••••
factors related to ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
gross • ........................................
net • ................. , • • •. • • • • • • • • • • • • • · • • • • ·
per capita . ................................ .
Populationilliterac7 of, b7 States ................... .
ratio of southeastern, in schools •••••••••••
trends and plantation labor •••••••••••••••••
Prodnctioncontrolbenefits of .............................. .
difficulties of ............•.........•....
66-67
ro-21, 199
28-29
28
3-5
73-74, 217
25-26
17-19, 196,
197.
195
:?S, 201
1-5
5-8
3-5, 249
89
73-75, 217
66-68
68-70, 216
70-73, 216
233
128-129
5-8
187
188
for home useincome f rm .......•.......................
short age of . ............................. .
value ofto plantations ......................... .
to tenants .............................. .
Production Credit Associations and O>rporationsaount and size of loans made by ••••••.•••••
n1111ber of in cotton States ••••••••••••••••••
Digitized by
46, 221
46
66-67
102-104, 221
56, 213
55
Google
284
INDEX
Programsattempted, for southern agriculture •••••••••
185-191
188
187
18~
187-188
189-191
189
188-189
186
185-186
credit reform ........•........•...........
diversification of crops ••••••••••••••••••
legislation, State ....................... .
production control ....................... .
promotion of land ownership •••••••••••••••
rehabilitation, rural •••••••••••••••••••••
relief, direct, work . .................... .
soil conservation .••••••••••••••••••..••••
submarginal land retirement .•••.••••••••••
Proprietorships, size ofin selected counties .•••...••••.•••.•••..•••
trend in .. ................................. .
See also: Holdings; Plantations.
Raper, A. F.: Two Black Belt Count Les: Chanees
tn Rural Ltfe stnce the Aduent of the Boll
lieeut l tn Greene and If aeon count Les, Geort ta.
Rehabilitation, rural, programas aid to farm families .................... .
capabilities of fanilies for ............... .
cases under care and goods issued ••.••••••••
history of ................................. .
in relation to share-cropper system ........ .
relief and, in cotton States •••••••.••..••••
and relief cases by occupation and tenure of
196, 197
17-19
22n , 24n , 52n
189
175-177
171-173, 240
169-171
174-175
145-177
174
heads .•.• ••••..•.•••••••••••••••••••••••••
Reliefcasesnumber, by residence, color, and location
in cotton or non-cotton counties ...•••••
number, in cotton counties of 7 States,
6-mon th intervals ••••••••••..••••••.•.••
occupation and tenure of heads of •••••••••
costs, and size of benefits ............... ..
factors influencingA.A.A. payments ••••.••••••••..••••••••••••
145-150, 234
235
174
166-169, 239
racial ......................... • ......... .
148-150
148, 150-151
153-161
152-153
rise in cotton price ••••••••.•.••••••••.••
unemployables •••••••••.•.••••••••••.••••••
rehabilitation intensity rates, and .•••••.••
to plantation families ..................... .
trends and extent of •••••.••••••••.•••••••••
Rent, income to landlords ••••••••••••••.•••••••
151-152
234
161-165, 238
145-148
66
ad.mini strati v e ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
displaced tenants .•••..••••••••.•••••••••.
148
Dig tized by
Goos le
INDEX
285
Residence, fannchange in, by status ••.•••••.••••••.••••••••
length of, by color, tenure, age, farming
experience ............................... .
number of moves made •••••••.••••••••.••••••.
Richards, Henry I.: Cotton and the A.A.A ••••••
Rural-urban mobility ••••••••••••••••••••••••.••
Salaries of teachers in the Southeast •.••.••.••
Sanitary facilities •.••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Schedule, used in study •.••••••••••••••••••.•.•
Schooling, see Education.
Schoolsaverage number days attended •••••••••.••••••
financial. support to ••.••.•••••••••.••••••••
grade attainments .......................... .
length of term •••••••••...•••••.••.•••••••••
ratio of southeastern population in .•••••.••
See also: Education.
Scope and method of study •.•.•••.••••••••••••••
Sizedwellings ••••••••••••.••...••••••••••.••.••.
families, and employability of members, by
relief status and tenure .•.•••••••.•••••.•
plantations-
110-114
109-110
112
156n
121-123
134-139
98-100, 228
•
253
130
139-140
131-132
132-134
12.8-129
243-246
97-98, 225
164-165
17-19
in relation to income •••••••••••••••••••••
73-74, 217
in selected counties .•...•.••.•....•...•.• 17-19, 196-197
Social contributions of landlordschnrch, school, and entertainment .•••.••••••
32, 204-205
leg al . ..................................... ,
32, 204-205
medical. .................................... .
31, 204-205
transportation •.•.••.•••...••••••••••.•••••.
32, 204-205
Soilconservation, tenant system retards •••.•••••
186
erosion in the Southeast .•••••••••••••••••••
43-46
Standard of living, tenants'clothing ................................... .
101
communication facilities ••••••••••••••••••••
104-105
food •• ••..••••...••••.•••.••• , , • , . •, , •. •, • • ·
101-104
heal th ..................................... .
105-106
housing and fuel ........................... .
91-101
See also: Food; Health; Housing.
Standing, T. G. and Hangu s: Workers and Dependchanges in .•••.•.••••.•.••••••.••••••..••.
ent Ate Groups tn Rural and 1'own He l tef
Cases tn October 193i .................... .
151.n
Submarginal landretirement programs for •••••••••••••••••••••
effect on owners and tenants ••••••••••••••
effect on production of cash crop ••••••.••
soil erosion and, in the South ••••••••••••••
185-186
185
185-186
43-46
Digr
zedbyGoogle
INDEX
2B6
Subsistence advancesto tenants ...........•......................
59, 63
168-169
compared with relief grants •.••••••••••••.
Tec1ehers~a1 ari es in Sou t he&f!t ...•..• ......•.•••.....
134-139
134-139
training ...........•.........•..............
Tenancy-
12-14
154-155, 236
9-14, 195
increa..c;e in ......•.....•.•••••...••••....•..
trends ..................................... .
Tenant classes in plantation areas ••••.••••••••
TenantsA.A. A. payments to ..••..••••••..•••.•.....•..
66-67
6Cr6l, 215
153-161
82-87, 220,
221, 222.
61-64
debts of ... ......•••..••..•...••••......•.••
displaced . ................................. .
income of . ...........•......................
interest rates to .•.•••••••••......•.•.•••••
number ofchange in.. • . • • . . • • • . • • • . . . • . • . • • • . • . . • • . •
per plantation surveyed...................
short term credit of........................
standard of living..........................
type of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tenure-
154-155, 237,
238.
195
59
91-106
195
change of .•••••..•••••••••••••••••••••••••••
by residence ........•.•...................
115-121
11Crll4
occupational hi story and, of South Carolina
farmers . ...•.•...••••••.••. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
statuscolor Md, of f arni operators in cotton
States ........................ , ........ .
length of fann residence by .••••.•.•••••.•
of males in agriculture in cotton States,
by color .. ............................. .
systems on plantations ..................... .
See also: Occupation.
Trade, inter-regional and international, related
to Southern economy .. ..•..................
Training, of teachers in the Southeast •.••..•••
Transportation facilities of tenants .•••••.••••
Trendscotton culture ............................. .
fann mortgage debts ••••••••••.••....••••••••
119-121, 231
154-155, 236
109-110
11
10
182
138
32, 205
38-41
50-52
land in farms ......•.._.....................•
15-17
large vs. small operations ••...•.........••.
183-184
plantation ownership ••••••••••..•.•..••..•••
17-19
population .........•••.••••.•....•..•.......
5-8
relief, and extent of •••••••..••...•.•••....
145-148
tenancy ......•...••..••.•••..•..•.••.•..••.• 12-13, 154-155,
236.
D1gt1zed
oyGoogle
•
INDEX
Turner, H. A. and Johnson: Old Plantatton Pted•ont Cotton Belt, The •••••••••••••••••••••
Typhoid and paratyphoid, death rate in rural
sections ................................. .
2211
105-106, 230
Wages-
children receiving, in cotton States ••••••••
value of received by tenants .•••••••••••••••
Weevil, see Boll.weevil.
Wickens, David L.: far• Korttaee Credtt •••••••
Willians, B. 0.0ccupattonal lobtltty (JIIOni far111ers •••••••••
Soctal lobtlttv and the Land Tenure Proble•.
Woods, and pasture, percentage land in •••••••••
Woofter, T. J., Jr.Netro Kttratton •••.•.•••••.•.••..•••••••••••
Pl ttht of Cttaret te Tobacco, The ••••.•••••••
Southern Population and Social Planntnt •.•••
Wooten, H. H.: Credtt Proble111s of North Carol tna Cropper farmers . ..•.•...•.•••••••••••
World Wa½ impetus for diversification of crops.
Yearbooks, U. S. Department of Agriculture ••••.
Dig t1zed by
142
87
51n, 5211
108n
108!1
35, 206
9n
3n
7n, 126n
61n, 6211
48
38n, 39n
Google
Di t1ze
oyGoogle
@FedFRASER