The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY
John M. Carmody, Ad•l•ldrotor
WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION
F. C. Hamn.-, C:O.alaloner
Comnston GIii, A,s/dont Co.alalonw
DIVISION OF RESEARCH
Howard B. Myen, Dl,ecto,
THE PLANTATION
SOUTH
1934-1937
by
William C. Holley
Ellen Winston
T. J. Woofter, Jr•
•
RESEARCH MONOGRAPH XXII
1940
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON
D
I
zedoyGooglc
Dg111 ed
vGoogle
Letter of Transmittal
WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D. 0., November 1, 1989.
Sia: I have the honor to transmit a comprehensive report on recent
changes in plantation organization and operation in the Southeast.
In order to analyze such changes, the cotton plantation survey of the
crop year 1934:, reported in the research monograph Landlord and
Tenant on the Ootton Plantation, was repeated for the crop year 1937.
In contrast to 1934 the crop control program of 1937 was on a voluntary basis and cotton acreage was unusually large. Climatic factors
were also particularly favorable for cotton production so that high
yields were obtained. A total of 246 plantations which were included
in both surveys form the basis of the present report.
During the period covered, both the average size of the 246 plantations and the proportion of the total cropland in cotton per plantation
increased. Tenants as well as landlords improved their financial
status in the period between the two surveys but even in 1937 cropper
and share tenant net income, including home-use production, averaged only about $400 per family. While croppers operated nearly
half of the acreage in both years, a significant increase in the acreage
operated by wage labor at the expense of share tenant and renter
labor occurred, and the use of mechanized power was expanded.
Such facts, together with the pressure of population on economic
opportunity, help to explain the present widespread unemployment
and underemployment in the rural South. Moreover, they are basic
factors in the persistence of relief needs which far exceed the available
facilities for alleviating distress.
The study was made in the Division of Research under the direction
of Howard B. Myers, Director of Research. T. J. Woofter, Jr., Chief,
Rural Surveys Section, conducted the field survey with the assistance
of the State supervisors of rural research and had general supervision
of the analysis of the data. William C. Holley and Catharine Lant.a
had charge of the tabulation of the survey data. Chapters I through
V of the report were prepared by William C. Holley; the introduction,
summary, and chapter VII by Ellen Winston; and chapters VI and
VIII by T. J. Woofter, Jr. Ellen Winston was responsible for the
technical supervision and editing of the monograph.
Respectfully submitted.
CORRINGTON GILL,
Assistant Commissioner.
CoL.
F. C. HARRINGTON,
Oommissioner of Work Projects.
Ill
D1gi• zed by
Google
D1g1t1zed by
Goos Ie
Contents
Pa,.
lntrocludion- - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ - _
XI
Summary_ _ - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - -
xv
Chapter I. Chang• In plantation organization and operation -
1
3
Land organization_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Organization of cropland_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ •
5
Organization of cropland by tenure _
Cotton yield _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
:7
Plantation livestock _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
10
9
Chapter II. Changes In plantation labor and power - - -
13
13
Labor _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Predominance of Negro labor_ _ _
16
Utilization of off-plantation labor _
Type of off-plantation labor
Transportation _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Changes in power _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
16
16
17
17
20
Prospects for increased mechanization __
Chapter
Ill.
Credit _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _
23
23
24
Operators' long-term indebtedness_ _
Operators' short-term credit
Tenants' short-term credit _ _ _ _ _
26
Chapter IV. Plantation Income_ - - ___ - __
29
29
30
Investment per plantation _ _
Gross plantation income __ _
Current expenses ____ _
34
35
Pla.ntation net cash income_
V
Dg,1,zedbvGoc
gle
VI • CONTENTS
Page
39
39
Chapter V. Operator and tenant Income _ _
Operator's cash income
Gross cash income __
39
Current expenses _
40
Net cash income _
41
Net cash gain or loss
41
Tenant's cash income _ _
Gross cash income __
43
43
Current expenses _ _ _
Net cash income _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
44
45
Net cash income by cotton acreage _
Net income _______ _
45
Chapter VI. Relief nHcls In the South _
46
47
Population trends_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
48
Change in number of farm operators, 1930 to 1935
48
Extent of Federal aid __
51
Chapter VII. Living conditions _
55
Diet __ _
55
Housing __
58
Health __
60
Education _ _
63
Plane of living
67
Chapter VIII. Programs and policla _ _
71
Appendix A. Supplementary tabla
79
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Appendix B. List of tabla _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Appendix C. Method and scope of the study
__
99
103
Appendix D. Changes in labor requirements for cotton production-
115
Index _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
119
D1gi: led by
Google
CONTENTS • VII
ILLUSTRATIONS
A9ura
Figure
Page
1. Plantations enumerated,
2. Areas included in survey
3. Operation of crop acres
and 1934 _ _ _ _ _ _
1937 and 1934_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
per plantation, by tenure, 1937
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
xn
XIII
7
4. Organization of cropland per plantation, by tenure, 1937
and 1934 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
5. Resident families per plantation, by type, 1937 and 1934 _
6. Tractors per plantation, 1937 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7. Gross income from cash receipts per plantation, by area,
1937 and 1934_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
8. Net cash income per plantation, by area, 1937 and 1934 _
9. Cash income per operator, by area, 1937 and 1934_ _ _ _
10. Federal aid per capita, January 1933-March 1938_ _ _ _
11. Rural-farm plane-of-living index in 32 rural-farm cultural
regions, 1930 _ _ _ _
9
14
19
32
36
42
52
67
Photo9raphs
Plantation owner's dwelling _ _ _ _
_ Facing
Plantation buildings _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ Facing
Cotton choppers with riding boss __
_ Facing
Hoe work _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ Facing
One-half row cotton cultivation
Facing
__ Facing
One-row cotton cultivation _ _
_ Facing
Four-row cotton cultivation _
_ _ _ _ _ Facing
Collecting cotton pickers _
_ _ _ _ _ Facing
_ ___ _
Pickers at work _ _
Weighing up __________ _ - - - _ _ Facing
Loading for the gin _______ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ Facing
_ Facing
Mechanical cotton picker at work
_ _ _ _ _ Facing
Sharecropper home_ _ _ _ _ _ _
D1g1· zed by
XIV
XXII
4
12
16
18
22
26
32
36
42
46
58
Goos Ie
Digit zed by
Goos Ie
The Plantation South, 1934-1937
IX
o giltled by
Google
Digitized by
Google
INTRODUCTION
W1THIN RECENT years changes in plantation organization and
operation have been proceeding at a rapid rate in the Southeastern States. In order to provide a definitive answer concerning
some of the causes of economic insecurity and labor displacement in
plantation areas of the Southeast, it appeared desirable to repeat the
plantation survey analyzed in the report Lanalord and Tenant on the
Cotton Plantation. 1 The earlier survey covers plantation operations
for the crop year 1934 while the resurvey is based on farm operations
in 1937 and the current situation at the time of the field survey in the
summer of 1938. To the extent that the schedule was expanded for
the resurvey, the emphasis was placed on changes in the labor force
and in the use of machinery. The crop year 1937 was exceptional as
the crop control program was on a voluntary be.sis, resulting in an
unusually large cotton acreage, and as climatic conditions were
especially favorable for cotton production. The implications of these
factors are of basic significance in any comparison of the data for 1934
and 1937.
A total of 246 schedules was secured in the survey of the 1937 crop
year which could be matched with schedules for the so.me plantations
from the 1934 enumeration (table 1 and fig. 1). 2 For the earlier survey
a plantation was defined as a tract with five or more resident families,
including the landlord, and this definition was retained in the later
study.
The plantations included in the present survey fall into nine aree.s, 8
two fewer than were covered by the more extensive study me.de as
of 1934.4 The Atlantic Coast Plain Area includes the general cotton1 Woofter, T. J., Jr. and Others, Research Monograph V, Division of Social
Research, Works ProgreBB Administration, Washington, D. C., 1936.
1 See Appendix C, Method and Scope of the Study.
1 These areas do not coincide with the type-of-farming aress delineated by the
Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
'The Upper Piedmont and Muscle Shoals Areas were included in the 1934
survey.
XI
D Jiltzed l.ly
Goog Ie
XII • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
TofJ#e J.-Plantations Enumerated, by Area, 1937 and 193-4
Plantations enumsalied
Area
Number
p-
All---------------------------------------------------------------- i - - - -2t6- i - - - 100.0
-Atlantlo Cout Plain.-------------------------------------------------------
31
Lower Delta _________________________________________ .. ______ ._______________
Interior PJaln ________________________________ . ________ .. __ .. _____ ___ _________
MlsslSllppl
Bluffl_..--------------------------------------------------------Red
River ________
__ . ____________ . ______ .... _. _________ ..
__________________
111
17
:i=
:::: ~~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Upper Delta_________________________________________________________________
Arll:anaas River .... ·· ···· · ---·-···-·--·--··---··----··-·-·-··---·-··------
f~
7'i1
ff
16
11
116
i:::
32.1
7. i
6. 9
11.
6. O
I
'-'
tobacco area. of the eastern part of North and South Carolina. and of
eastern and southeastern Georgia (fig. 2). West of this area, extending southwest from North Carolina through South Carolina and
Georgia. and crossing central Alabama and extending into east central
Mississippi, is the Black Belt, the traditional plantation area. This
in tum has been divided into two segments: (A) the area in which
croppers and other share tenants constituted a majority of all tenants
in 1930, and (B) the area in which renters constituted a majority in
1930.
Ag. I - PLANTATIONS ENUMERATED
1937 and 1934
ARK.
.,.,._
Each dot represents OIII plantation.
The Delta. Area, divided into an upper and a. lower section for purposes of analysis, follows both banks of the Mississippi River and
extends pa.rt way up its tributaries-the Red, the Ya.zoo, and the
Arkn.nsas_ To the east of this area, extending from southern
D1gi; zed by
Google
INTRODUCTION • XIII
Fig. 2 - AREAS INCLUDED IN SURVEY
I
Atlantic Coast Plain
2 Black Bell
3 Mississippi Bluffs
4 Della
5 Interior Plain
6 Red River
7 Arkansas
River
Source: Southern Regional Study,
University af North Carolina.
Mississippi northward through Tennessee, lies the Mississippi Bluffs
Area. To the west is the Interior Plain of southern Arkansas and
central and northern Louisiana. Smaller areas are formed by the
bottom lands along the Red River and the Arkansas River.
The study samples the larger agricultural units within these areas,
and hence its findings are applicable to plantation organization rather
than descriptive of the agriculture of the Southeast in general. That
the smaller operating units were affected by the same factors as the
larger holdings during the period covered in the study is undoubtedly
true, but the data at hand are inadequate as a basis for generalizing
concerning those units.
Such a study of changes occurring in plantation organization and
operation is particularly needed because of the generally low level
of living among the agricultural population throughout the South and
the persistence of the need for relief which far exceeds available
facilities for alleviating distress. Moreover, in view of present agricultural trends and the pressure of population on economic opportunity resulting in widespread unemployment and underemployment,
the situation exhibits many characteristics which will not change to
any marked extent within the near future.
D git,zed by
Goos le
D1gi:zed by
Google
F a rm •":-'ccu r -U u
..1 ,i uun ix tn,tiuu ( L 11u ue1.
Pla11tatio11 Owner's Dwelling.
o 1111
edt1vGoogle
Digitized by
Google
SUMMARY
RAPID AND significant agricultural changes have been occurring
in the Cotton Belt within recent years. On the cotton plantation
the general tendency, as shown by surveys in 1934 and 1937, has been
in the direction of slightly larger units. For all areas combined the
size of plantations surveyed increased during the 3-year period from
an average of 955 acres to 1,014 acres. Coincident with this expansion was an increase in the number of acres devoted to crops. The
largest proportion of plantations had from 200 to 400 acres in crops
in both years, but an increase occurred during the period of survey
in the number of plantations with very large crop acreages. The
average acreage in woodland also rose. Conversely, the acreages in
idle cropland and in farmsteads, roads, ditches, and wasteland
declined.
With the exception of the Black Belt (A) Area, all nine areas surveyed had from 30 to 60 percent of the crop acreage planted to cotton
in both 1934 and 1937. The fact that the crop control program was
on a voluntary basis in 1937 accounted for a significant increase in
the proportion of the total cropland in cotton in comparison with the
earlier year. Corn was planted on practically all plantations and
ranked second in crop acreage.
Not only was there an increase in cotton acreage but also the average yield rose from 268 pounds of lint cotton per acre in 1934 for all
areas combined to 456 pounds in 1937. A variety of factors, such as
more favorable climatic conditions, improved seed, increased use of
commercial fertilizer, larger acreages in leguminous crops in 1936,
inducements provided by the soil conservation program of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, decreased damage from plant
disease and inseci infestation, and developments in methods of production, affected this increase.
Coincident with the increa.<1e in crop acreage was the increase in the
average number of work stock owned by the plantation operator.
The number of cows also increased while the expansion in the number
of pigs was even more important. Even with such trends, however,
the number of livestock per plantation tended to remain relatively
small.
xv
Dgit1zedoyGoogle
XVI • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
A major consideration affecting the plantation operator's organization and operation plans is the relative availability and economy of
the various types of labor. The slight increase from 15 to 16 resident
families per plantation in all areas from 1934 to 1937 was due to
increases in cropland and especially in cropland planted to cott-0n.
This resulted in increased requirements for hand labor. However,
the average number of resident families per 1,000 acres of cropland
decreased from almost 37 to 34 during the period studied.
Croppers were the most important type of plantation labor, operating approximately 46 percent of all cropland in both years. Wagf'
le.borers were the second most important source of labor and, for all
areas combined, operated 41 percent of the cropland in 1937 as compared with 36 percent in 1934. Renters declined markedly from 1934
to 1937 in terms of number of families per 1,000 acres of cropland.
and croppers and share tenants decreased slightly. Only wage laborers
held their own.
Negro families were dominant on the plantations surveyed, outnumbering white families by approximately 9 to 1. Few plantation~
were operated solely by white tenants.
There was wide variation from area to area in the use of off-plantation labor for cotton chopping and picking, both local and migratory
labor being utilized. Operators usually provided the transportation
for the latter group. Migratory laborers for cotton picking were
recruited an average distance of 79 miles from the plantations on
which they were employed.
An increase in the average number of work stock per plantation
between 1934 e.nd 1937 was reported for all areas. In most areas,
however, the number of work stock per 1,000 acres of cropland remained about stationary. At the so.me time increases in the number
of tractors per 1,000 acres of cropland were reported in all area.a except
the Lower Delta, Interior Plain, and Arkansas River Areas. This
increase in mechanization was directly associated with the incre.Me
in the proportion of total cropland and of cotton acreage operated
with wage labor. On 131 of the 246 plantations power was provided
by both work stock and tractors, and 2 plantations were entirely
mechanized. Almost half of the plantations with tractors had only
one. Mechanization is retarded by such factors as lack of availRble
capital at a low rate of interest, need for an adequate supply of labor
during peak see.sons, unsuitable land, and preference for work stock
or sufficient numbers of work stock on hand for plantation operation.
Cotton, more than any other major crop, has resisted the general
trend toward mechanization in agriculture. Although e.n increase in
the use of various laborsaving devices may be expected, the rate of
adoption in the areas surveyed will be gradual. In many cases it will
continue to be economically advantageous to insure an adequate
D1gi" zed by
Google
SUMMARY • XVII
supply of harvest labor by employing the laborers throughout the
year.
A plantation is a business enterprise with the operator using longterm credit to provide capital assets and short-term credit to meet
current operating expenses. Long-term debts, which usually are
secured by reel-estate mortgages, were reported by a smaller proportion of the plantations in 1937 than in 1934. There was a definite
trend toward an increase in Government loans as compared with
other types, and the rate of interest declined during the period for
mortgages held by both governmental and nongovernmental agencies.
As a result of larger plantation profits operators had been enabled to
reduce their long-term indebtedness from an average of $13,018 to
$11,914. While mortgages remained by far the most important type
of long-term indebtedness, they were of less importance relatively in
1937 than in 1934, because improved financial circumstances made it
possible for operators to repay some of their obligations, thus opening
up new credit channels.
In order to provide short-term credit for financing his own operations
and making necessary advances to his tenants, the plantation operator
usually gives a first lien on the cash crops under cultivation and often
additional liens on livestock and implements. Banks are still the
principal source of such loans although they have been decreasing
somewhat in importance, particularly because of the increased facilities
offered by Government agencies. Merchant loans have also decreased
in importance.
Interest rates are high on short-term loans because a per annum rate
is normally charged, although the loan is usually for only a few
months. Thus, even on Government loans, which were secured on
more favorable terms than loans from other sources, operators paid a
rate of almost 12 percent per annum in both 1937 and 1934.
Croppers and share tenants are ordinarily dependent on credit from
the landlord to cover costs of production and subsistence. As security the operator takes liens on their cash crops and such farm equipment as they may possess. On the plantations surveyed, subsistence
advances were made for 7 months on the average and increased slightly
from $13.70 per month in 1934 to $14.50 in 1937. Although operators
themselves pay high interest charges for short-term credit, rates for
tenants are two to three times as high, averaging 36 percent on an
annual basis in 1937. Such heavy charges increase the difficulties of
the tenant in rising to a higher tenure status and operate age.inst diversification of crops because the tenant must concentrate on the cash
crop in order to meet his obligations.
The financial operations involved in plantation management are
complicated by the variety of activities engaged in, which normally
expand as the size of the unit and number of resident families increase.
Dg111zedbyGoc
glc
XVIII • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
The total investment usually represents a rather heavy capital outlay.
For all areas the investment per plantation at conservative market
values increased from $31,378 in 1934 to $37,504 in 1937. Almost
three-fourths of the total was accounted for by land. Investment per
crop acre also rose during the same period.
AB obtained in the survey, data on plantation gross income includrd
current cash receipts from farming operations only, including AA.A
payments. Financial returns from plantation-operated nonfarm
enterprises were not reported. Crop sales accounted for approximately 85 percent of the gross cash receipts for both years, and AAA
benefits were second in importance. Other sources of income were
sale of livestock products, interest on advances to tenants, cash rent
from land, commissions through resale of farm products, and returns
from special work performed by the operator or under his supervision.
In only one area, the Atlantic Coast Plain, did the sale of lint cot.ton
and cottonseed amount to less than 50 percent of the total cash receipts. Both AAA cash benefits and sale of livestock products
increased in total amount during the period of the study. The wide
variation in gross cash income is revealed by the fact that the gross
income per plantation for the one-fourth of the units with the highest
incomes was more than double the average for all plantations in both
1937'and 1934.
C~ent expenses per plantation also increased during the period
studied. Wages paid to laborers, the most important single item, rose
from 31 percent of the total expenditures in 1934 to 36 percent in 1937
as a result of expanded cotton acreage and the high yields in 1937 as
compared with 1934. Current expenses deducted from gross planta•
tion income to give net income included, in addition to labor expenses,
expenditures for feed, seed, and fertilizer; interest on short-term loans;
costs of current repairs to plantation buildings, fences, and implements; insurance and taxes; and miscellaneous items. On the average,
the net cash income per plantation increased from $5,689 in 1934 to
$7,673 in 1937. Factors responsible for this rise included increased
crop acreage planted to cotton and exceptionally high yields.
From the point of view of both operator and tenant the success of
the year's plantation operations is determined primarily by the net
cash income received. The gross income of the operator is dependent
to a large extent on the total acreage in crops, the proportion planted
to cotton, the average yield per acre, and the price level of the money
crop. Deducting current expenses from gross cash income, the aver·
age operator received a net cash income of $3,590 in 1937 as compared
with $2,528 in 1934. Only the three most eastern areas surveyed fail~
to show increases.
The operator's net cash income, however, represents the return for
his supervisory labor and interest on his invested capital. Deducting
D1g1: zed by
Google
SUMMARY • XIX
a 6 percent return on invested capital, operator labor income was
$1,340 in 1937 as compared with $645 in 1934.
Less than 10 percent of the total opera.tors in either year reported
actual losses in their plantation enterprises, and most of the 108888
a.mounted to less than $500. In contrast, 27 percent of all opera.tors
received $5,000 or more in 1937 and averaged net ca.sh incomes of
$10,268 as compared with 15 percent and an average income of $9,362
for 1934. Moreover, all the data point to the fa.ct that the plantation
operator wa.s in a much sounder position financially in 1937 than in
1934.
The gross ca.sh income of croppers and share tenants resulting from
crop sales, AAA payments, and plantation occa.siona.l la.bor for wages
averaged $385 in 1937 as compared with $331 in 1934. Cotton was
the ma.in source of this income in all areas except the Atlantic Coast
Plain Area where tobacco accounted for approximately one-half of the
crop sales.
After deducting expenses for actual crop production, the net income
of croppers and share tenants combined rose from $263 in 1934 to $300
in 1937. Of these totals $112 was for subsistence advances and $151
for net ca.sh income after settling in 1934 and $104 for subsistence
advances and $196 for net ca.sh income in 1937. On the basis of these
low net incomes which, even when production for home use was added
to them, averaged only a.bout $400 in the good cotton year of 1937, the
average Southern tenant can neither maintain an acceptable level of
living nor look forward to raising his tenure status.
The principal changes occurring in the cotton plantation organization, operation, and income between 1934 and 1937 may be summarized
a.s follows:
Principal Changes in Plantation Organization, Operation, and Income, 1934-1937
Change
Item
11137
11134
Actual
Total acm, _______________ _____________________________ _
Crop acres __ -----------------------------------------·Cotton acres_. _________ ----------------------- ________ _
Livestock:
I
Mules and
bonea _________________________________ _
CoWII. - --- - -- -- -- ------ - ----- ---- -- - - ------- -- ----Piim
.•.• ___
•• --acres
-- -- - In
-- -crape
. - - -- ____________________
--------- -· ------ ----_
Work
stock
per- -1,000
Tractors per 1,000 acres in crops ... _. __________________ _
Resident lamlllcs per 1,000 acres In crape ______________ _
Mortgage debt, percent reporting _____________________ _
Size ol mortgage debt. ________________________________ _
Net cash Income per operator_------------------------Net income• per tenant•-----------------------------Cash .. _____________ ---------------·-------- -- -- -- -Subsistence advanoee __ ------------------ _________ _
1.014
477
230
111115
417
z
10
111
111
47
28
31
48
3. 3
34
41
$11, 1114
$3, ll90
$300
$196
$104
178
LB
37
+1111
+60
+52
+4
+12
+~
+o.5
+28
-8
-21
-3
$2,528
+$1,062
S26.'I
+211
+94
+i
-II
-Sl.104
$151
$112
+e
+14
+15
$13,018
52
Percent
+$37
+w
-$8
+2
-11
~
-7
1 Exeludeo livestock owned by tenants.
• Excludes homo-use production which wa.s estimated at approximately $100.
• IDcludes croppers aud a.bare tenants ouly •
D q1t1 ed by
Goog Ie
XX• THE PLANTATION SOUTH
Problems arising in connection with changes in agricultural income,
with increased mechanization, and with variations in labor requirements are directly associated with relief needs in the South. Because
such needs are widespread throughout the rural South, the problem
has been analyzed for the section as a whole rather than for the more
limited area in which cotton production dominates. More tha.n onehalf of the farm population of the Nation is in the South, and the
basic causes of Southern relief problems are to be found in the maladjustments of this farm population in relation to agricultural opportunity and its pressure toward the towns and villages where it cannot
be absorbed. Population has backed up steadily on the farms in
recent years as a result of decreased urbanward migration, and the
pressure of persons of working age has become more and more serious.
Population increases in the South from 1930 to 1935 occurred primarily outside of the major cotton regions, where both the total farm
population and the nlllnber of farm operators were approximately the
same on April 1, 1930, and January 1, 1935. Owners and tenants in
the cotton regions increased somewhat but croppers declined by nearly
10 percent. Data from the Unemployment Census of November 1937
substantiate the fact that unemployment of farm operators and farm
laborers is more widespread in the South than in the country as a
whole. Extensive need, present at all times, becomes especially
acute during the winter months when the low-income farmer has
n~ither adequate funds to tide him over until the new crop year nor
available sources of between-season employment.
On a per capita basis the South bas not received as muob Federal
aid as most other sections. Low standards of living have led to
rigorous standards of acceptance for relief and small relief benefits
per case. Relief loads have varied considerably from year to year
as a result of administrative factors and limitation of funds as well
as of changes in the general economic situation. Of the more than
1,000,000 rural cases aided in the South in November 1938 under general relief, Works Progress Administration, and Farm Security Administration programs combined, it is estimated that about 600,000
included employable workers with farm backgrounds. Since large
nlllnbers applying for aid could not be employed by the WPA, it is
obvious that the magnitude of the rural relief problem in the Sout.h
is far greater than the data on case loads indicate.
In the rural South both those on relief and their nonrelief neighbors
are disadvantaged with respect to living conditions and community
institutions. Inadequate nutrition constitutes a basic problem in the
South. Because of low incomes the adequacy of the diet is directly
dependent upon production for home use. Increased emphasis on
such production in turn has been found to be one step toward raising
the net incomes of poverty-stricken farm families.
D1g1 zed by
Google
SUMMARY • XXI
The dietary inadequacies of the agricultural families at the bottom
of the economic ladder in the Southern States a.re accompanied by
poor housing. On the average the Southern farm house is old and
unpainted, without bathroom or basement, and one story in height.
It lacks running water and in one out of three cases the roof, doors and
:windows, and interior walls and ceilings are in poor condition.
Related to the poor housing, inadequate sanitary facilities, and
meager diets of poverty-stricken Southern rural families a.re high
rates of illness. Provisions for prevention of contagion are frequently
inadequate, and death rates from such diseases as typhoid and paratyphoid fever and malaria continue to be high as compared with
other areas. A major step toward the control of malaria, however,
has been the recent drainage of almost 2,000,000 acres of swamps
through CWA, FERA, and WPA programs. This has affected the
health of 15,000,000 people. Associated with the lag in control of
various diseases are the inadequate provisions for infant and maternal
care and the limited hospital facilities.
The rural South is also at a disadvantage in comparison with other
sections of the country in educational facilities. The handicap of
inadequate education is widespread among low-income farm families
throughout the South, and this handicap applies not only to the older
generation but to the rising generation as well. An effective attack
on the widespread problem of illiteracy has been made through the
Emergency Education Program of the FERA-WPA under which
from 1933 through June 1938 more than one-half million persons in
both urban and rural areas of 12 Southern States were taught to read
and write. Data which show that less than 1 in 4 of the white heads
of households on relief in the Eastern Cotton Area in October 1935
and only 1 in 25 of the Negro heads had advanced beyond the seventh
grade are indicative of the educational status of a much larger proportion of the population than that actually receiving aid. Many
factors serve to keep farm children out of school in the South but
peak demands for labor in the cotton fields is one important cause.
Closely related to low incomes and lack of adequate social services
are the low rural-farm plane-of-living indices among Southern regions,
indices on which these regions rank at the bottom for the country as
a whole. One of the most promising developments for improving
living conditions in the South is the expansion of electrical service,
although no Southern State is yet up to the national average of 22.1
percent for farms receiving central-station service as of June 30, 1939.
The problems of rural living in the South reflect the economic
situation and emphasize the need for broad programs of economic and
social reconstruction. Important steps in this direction have been
taken in recent years through submarginal land retirement, soil
conservation, promotion of family-sized farms and farm ownership
Dg1111edovGoogle
XXU • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
by the Farm Security Administration, the experimental promotion
of cooperative farm enterprises, increased crop diversification, crecfa .
reform, tenancy reform, and the Federal work program. Much
remains to be done along all of these lines, and no Federal action
has yet been taken for equalizing educational, public health, and
low-income housing opportunities between rural and urban areas.
Increasing attention to these problems and substantial agreement as
to the things which need to be done, however, make it safe to predict
that over a period of time major achievements will result.
· 1,1
·I, ·
D1gi:zed by
Google
Parm JS (-c u r it y .l tlmin i ...: t n , tion (La11 yc).
Pla11talio11 Buildings.
D1g1 zed by
Google
Digi:zed by
Google
Chapter I
CHANGES IN PLANTATION ORGANIZATION
AND OPERATION
PLANTATION ORGANIZATION and operation in the Southeast
are undergoing rapid change. Variations in production practices,
in prices paid and received by farmers, and in extent of participation
in agricultural adjustment programs of the Federal Government have
been important factors in producing such change. The data presented for 246 plantations for the crop years 1937 and 1934 a.re indicative of the significant trends which are occurring.
The study is based on single-unit plantations operated either by
owners or by managers who exercise the authority of owners. The
plantation operator, whether owner or manager, has numerous specific
duties to perform and in addition often delegates certain definite
duties to subordinates in the plantation organization. The duties of
the operator primarily include crop planning, financing of operations,
management of labor and power, supervision of cropping practices,
marketing, and management of other plantation-operated enterprises.1 The variety of the activities and the size of the enterprises
call for a high degree of managerial ability for efficient plantation
operation. The success with which the operator manages the varied
types of activities is largely reflected in the financial outcome of the
year's work.
In spite of the many and varied activities associated with plantation
management, approximately 28 percent of the plantation operators
included in the study reported a second occupation to which they
1 A detailed description of managerial functions on the plantation may be
found in Woofter, T. J., Jr. and Others, Landlord and Tenant on the Cotton Plantation, Research Monograph V, Division of Social Research, Works Progress
Administration, Washington, D. C., 1936, pp. 26-33.
0 g1tized by
Google
2 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
devoted more than one-fourth of their time (table 2). The proportion
was almost the same for all areas combined in both 1934 and 1937.
To the extent that these other occupations may result in neglect of
plantation operations, they lead to speculative and inefficient agricultural operations.
·
Tobie !.-Operators With Other Occupations,1 by Area, 1937 and 1934
Operaton with other
occupations
Totaloper•
aton
11137
All_._---- --- ------ -····--·--·------------·············-·Atlantic Coast Plain .. -- -- __ ············----·---·------·---·-·-·-·--
:i:: ::lt ~L--_:::: ·::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Er::~:---------------···---·-·-··----------·--·--·-·---·-----lnterlor Plaln--·-··-··-·-··- ····-··· -··- -··--····-·-- -·· -·····-·. : __
1
248
1111
31
31
16
79
Ill
17
e
fR
8
e
e
12
3
rt
22
a
4
7
4
II
'rl
15
11
Millslsslppl Bluffs_·-·········-···-·· ___ .. ----·-----·-···-·--·-·- .. _
Red River ..... -----········-··-·-··--._. _________________________ ._
Arkamas Rlvl'I'-------····--··-·------ .
·······--·-- ·• ··········-
11134
"3
1
•
I
Accounting ror more than on~ourth of their time.
In addition to other occupations, absentee ownership is generally
regarded. as a possible deterrent to efficient plantation operation.
The practice of living off the plantation was slightly less frequent in
1937 than in 1934, the proportion of operators residing on their plantations having risen from 70 percent to 73 percent during the interval
(table 3). Of those operators who lived elsewhere, the great majority
were within 10 miles of their plantations. This made possible daily
supervision of operations and reduced the number of plantations
possibly affected by lack of operator supervision to less than 10 percent. Even in such cases modern transportation facilities are such
that ill effects from neglect by absentee operators cannot be assumed.
Tobie 3.-Resident and Absentee Operators, by Area, 1937 and 1934
---
.,.....
Total
opera.
ton
Number of opera,tors living OD
plantations
Operators living
within 10 miles
of plantations
---11137
11134
Operators living
more than 10
miles from plantatlons
--- ----~--
11137
11134
11137
HIM
--- ------ All areas:
Number--·---------·
Percent __ . ___ ..... __ .
248
100. 0
180
T.l.2
172
61l. 9
31
16
79
19
17
20
18
00
13
12
15
21
15
--Atlantic Coim Plain. __ .. __ .•. _
31
Black Belt (A) _________________
Black Belt (B) _________________
~.:: g:\:::::::: :::::::::::
Interior Plain._ ....... ___ --·-._
~11s.sisslppl Bluffs _--------··-·
Red River·-·---------··--····Ark8DSll9 River.·------·---····
17
'rl
16
11
17. 9
44
M
22. 4
11
16
3'
7
1
12
-II
a
-2
-
9
JI
10
3
20
10
5
6
14
14
I
8
58
13
-1
D g111zed by
22
8.11
e
4
8
-t
Goog IC
2
1
2
10
7. 7
I
3
-g
2
-1
I
PLANTATION ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION • 3
The increased number of operators who lived on their plantations in
1937 as compared with 1934 is related to the fact that the proportion
with other farms declined from 38 percent to 26 percent.• Consolidation of holdings was e. major factor in this decrease.
LAND ORGANIZATION
The general tendency in recent years among the plantations surveyed has been in the direction of slightly larger units, resulting in
part from consolidation of farms. For all areas combined the size of
plantations increased from an average of 955 acres in 1934 to 1,014
acres in 1937, an increase of approximately 6 percent (table 4). All
areas had small increases except the Black Belt (B) and the Arkansas
River Areas where relatively slight decreases appeared.
The changes from year to year in crop acres per plantation a.re due
largely to changes in price outlook and Agricultural Adjustment
Administration crop regulations (appendix table 1). Severe reductions
in acreage were imposed during the crop yea.rs 1934 and 1935 for
cotton, whereas in 1936 and 1938 the program was less severe and in
1937 it was on e. voluntary basis.
Between 1934 and 1937 an increase in the average plantation acreage
devoted to crops occurred in all areas with the single exception of the
Black Belt (B) Area.. Even in this area the proportion of the total
plantation acreage devoted to crops increased slightly. For all areas
47 percent of the total acreage was planted to crops in 1937 as compared with 44 percent in 1934 (table 4). In each of the years surveyed
the largest proportion of plantations contained from 200 to 400 acres
in crops (appendix table 2). However, about 43 percent of the plantations devoted 400 acres or more to crops in 1937 in comparison with
36 percent in 1934. The number of plantations with from 600 to 800
crop acres more than doubled from 1934 to 1937, while plantations
with crop acreages of 1,000 acres or more increased by slightly more
than one-third during the same period.
Normally very small acreages of cropland are left idle on plantations.
A larger total acreage was idle in 1934, when cotton acreage was curtailed by the AAA in conformity with the Bankhead Cotton Act under
which a tax penalty was incurred for cotton ginned in excess of e. specified quote. per plantation,1 than was idle in 1937. There was wide
variation from area to area, however, with the Lower Delta. and Interior Plain Areas showing particularly large proportionate increases in
idle cropland in 1937 (table 4).
1 Data on file in the Division of Research, Work Projects Administration,
Washington, D. C.
1 For a summary of the programs of the AAA with respect to cott.on see Agricultural Adjustment Administration, Agricultural Adjustment: 1937-88, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., 1939, passim.
D 1111
edbyGoogle
4 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
Table 4.-0rganiz:ation of Land per Plantation, by Area, 1937 and 1934
Acree per plantation
Total
plantatlons
Area
All
areaa .••••
Atlantic Coast Plain.
Black
Black Belt
Belt ~A~----B _____
Upper Delta _______
Lower Delta ________
Interior Plain __ ... _
Mississippi Blwb. _
Red River __________
Arkansas River. _..
Orope
Total
-
1937
1934
1,014
11156
81
31
16
79
19
17
11111
766
MO
1, 112
1,922
1181
71
912
1,271
1,473
770
16
II
730
672
l,lll
1,598
671
898
978
1,610
1937
1934
,TT
'17
am
303
I
Idle
1937 1934
G
153
-243- =28 - 63
-===
831
67
18
243
679
373
ag7
434
249
642
249
340
392
636
214
67
INO
880
16
n8
11
2g
58
Paatnre
I 1937
11134
1415
!Iii!
==-=- =
64
211
48
UIS
26
69
83
14
46
63
87
70
110
494
110
67
169
167
81
140
558
134
IOI
213
226
171
Woodland
Other•
I
11187
1934
2111
233
1937 lllM
- 118
1111
---- - =
232
200
16
M
102
170
190
174
366
284
641
456
186 - 136
330
234
3(14
1111
Ul6
161
a
48
42
19
46
200
20
62
88
128
86
252
47
126
68
266
--
A l l -.....
--
Atlantic Coast Plain_
Black Belt )A) _____
Black Belt B) _____
Upper Delta _______
Lower Delta _______
Int~rtor Plain ___ . __
Mississippi Bluffll __
Red River __________
Arkansas River ____
1
Farmsteads,
81
81
16
79
111
17
71
16
II
Percent dlatrlbutlon
- = -=100.0 =100.0 =IIO. l -41.11- -4-2 =9.1 =8. 2 -6.0- -36.1- -"-'
3'.4 2. 4
9.6
4- 2
6. 6
14-8
lll.8
28. 7
6. 7
41.6
7.6
3.3
48.8 1.0
15.6 11. l
00.6 7.4
43. 7 3.2
64.7 4- 7
68. 2 1.0
6.11
211.2
21. 6
43.11
4.6
6. 3
6.2
2.1
6.1
6.4
6. 8
13.0
14. 2
12. 6
34. 11
20.0
11. 2
21.8
8.4
13. 6
35.2
32. 9
33.4
24.2
36.2
16.6
11.2
23.3 6. 4
30.4 3.6
26.11 4.1
28. 6 10.4
100.0
IOD.O
47.1
G.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
46.4
46.0
62.1
111.4
61.6
47.6
68. 5
63.8
11.11
26. 7
14.3
7.3
13.0
16. 3
20.3
2G. 1
10.1
10. 7
2. e
6. 7
7.2
8. 7
10.1
7.1
7.8
7. 7
15.8
7.0
13.11
7.0
16.11
roada, dltcbee, turnrowa, streams, lakes, and low manb7 . , _ not prolltable to drain.
While the proportion of the total plantation acreage in pasture
decreased by 2 percent between 1934 a.nd 1937, a slight increase in
woodla.nd occurred. A relatively large acreage in woodland is important as wood is the chief type of fuel utilized by plantation families.
A large proportion of the woodland on plantations is along streams,
in hilly sections unsuited to cultivation, and in low wet areas which
require drainage prior to cultivation.
The smallest proportion of the total plantation acreage except that
devoted to idle cropland consists of (1) the area occupied by operator
and tenant home sites, ha.ms for livestock, space for implements, storehouses for farm products, gins, commissaries, and other plantation
buildings; and (2) the area. occupied by roads, ditches, turnrows,
watercourses, lakes, and low marshy areas not likely to be profitable
for cultivation even if drained. Between 1934 and 1937 the acreage
included in these categories decreased significantly in e.ll areas except
the Red River Ve.lley.
Thus, the general tendency in organization, as reflected in land use
during the period covered, appears to be in the direction of more
complete utilization of the plantation acreage. The average acreage
devoted to crops and woodland increased, and, at the same time, idle
cropland and the acreage devoted to farmsteads, roads, ditches, and
wasteland were restricted.
Digi• led by
Google
..
({~ ,
.,._ !':t·• ,.
.-..
. ...
.
I .II !ld(t11t•, ,.
Collon Choppers l\ ,.1th /-''/'
\I< wg /Joss
, .
Ogit1zednyGoogle
Digi:zed by
Google
PLANTATION ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION •
5
ORGANIZATION OF CROPLAND
Although the plantations studied were selected from cotton counties,' there was a. wide range from area. to area. in the proportion of
crop acres planted to cotton. All areas studied had from 30 to 60
percent of the crop acreage devoted to cotton during both yea.rs
included in the study with the exception of the Black Belt (A) Area.
which dropped below 30 percent (appendix table 3). On individual
plantations, however, the acreage occasionally dropped below 20 percent or rose to 80 percent or more (appendix table 4). A significant
increase in the proportion of the total cropland planted to cotton
occurred in 1937 when acreage reduction was on a. voluntary ha.sis as
compared with 1934 when production restrictions were severe (table 5).
Toftle 5.-0rganization of Cropland per Plantation,1 1937 and 1934 1
Crop acres per plantation
Orop
11137
Number
11134
Percent
Number
Peroent
AD crol)II.........................................
4M
100.0
«)I)
100.0
Com and Inter-planted logumee. .. . . .• . . ••.•.. .. . • . . . . . •
Small grain 1 •••••••• . • • • • . • . . . • . • • • • • • • •• • • • • •• • • • • • • • •
Cowpea and IIOJ'bean ba7........... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alfalla ba7.............................................
134
18
!Ml
12
28. g
148
13
H
II
II
1
10
18
44.6
37.0
3. 3
3.6
2. 2
2. 2
0.3
2. 6
4. 6
t-----1----,--Cotton.................................................
230
49.6
178
~;,:~~in~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::
All other crol)II............... .. .. .. .............. ......
1i
311
3.11
4.3
2. 8
1.11
0.6
2. 6
6. 6
E:rclndm cropland of renters (cash and standing) for wblcb data b7 cropa were not available.
• For data b7 areas - appendix table 3.
• PrinclpallJ' oats.
1
Corn~ like cotton, is planted on practically all plantations and ranks
next to cotton in crop acreage. Practically all corn is interpla.nted
with legumes, principally cowpeas, soybeans, and velvet beans. A
slight reduction in corn acreage occurred between 1934 and 1937,
probably because of the expansion in cropland devoted to cotton, hay
crops, and crops planted for soil maintenance in compliance with the
AAA soil conservation program. Cropland occupied by truck,
gardens, and orchards increased slightly in the majority of the areas
surveyed.
The remaining acreage was devoted for the most part to temporary
pasture and soil maintenance. In the Atlantic Coast Plain and Black
Belt (A) Areas, however, tobacco and peanuts occupied approximately
10 percent of the acreage in both yea.rs.
4 Counties in which 40 percent or more of the gross farm income in 1930 was
from cotton farms. Woofter, T. J., Jr. and Others, op. cit., p. 37.
D1gi:zed by
Google
0-
Ta&le 6.-0rganization of Cropland per Plantation, by Tenure and Area, 1937 and 1934
___
I I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ~~1
1
Total plantatio ns ...... . . . .• • . .. . ....... . .
I
1934
Black Belt
(B)
Upper
DelLR
Lower
Delta
Inte~for
Pla10
1937 1 1934
1937 1 1934
1937 1 1934
1037 1 1034
1937 1 1934
1937 1 1934
31
31
HI
79
19
17
I
24tl
I
Black Belt
(A)
A~~{:,.t;c
Plain
All areas
lt-0m
Crop acres per plantation • . . . . ...•• • •• .. . • . . . .. / 477 1 417 1+ 1
350
I 303 1
243 1 249
579
!
373 1 249 -: 397 1 340
542
•1
Mississippi
Bluffs
1937 1 1934
II
~
Red River
I
1937 1
1937 1 1934
l~ I
Ark_nnsas
Rl\·er
~~~
II
16
940
718 1 636
I
6137.
2 51. 36
45. 9138.
Wa~e laborers' · .. .
40.
45. 5
45. 57 1 35.
Croppers .. . .. . ... . . . . .
I I.I 14. 9
Sbaro tenant.,. . . . . . . . . . . . ...
4.0
R enters (ca.~ h and stan<lln~) •.•....• . • . . .. . 2.7
0
13
;-.
N
"'
Cl.
0-
'<
C")
0
~
fj
34. 5 I 38. 9
61. 3 1 55. 1
3. 7
I. 6
2. 3
2. 6
25. 8 1 36. 0 1 40. 8 1 34- ti
52. 8 31. 9 43. 4 42. 8
3. 0 10. 5 14. 7 I 21. 1
I. 5 I
18. 4 20. 7 , I. 1
·1
13. 1
3.8
4. 6
5.5
,
Wage la borer crop acres In:
. . :14. 5 21. 9 , 29. I
Cotton .. . .. . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . .. . .. .
:io. 0 42. l 43. 5
Corn .. . .. ..• . . . . .•.. · ·• • •· •· ·· · • ••·•·•.. .
All other crops . •. .•. . .• .•. . .... . •. . . . . . • . .. 35. 5 36. 0 27. 4
28. o
46. 4
24. 7
20. 3
45. 5
.'1-l 2
14. 6 1 31. 2
41.1 34 6
44. 3 34. 2
Crop er crop acres In :
r.o l
tfotton..... . . . . . • • •••• •• • . ••• . .•. ... . . .. .
Oorn •.... . •• •. · · •· · •··· · · ··••·· ··••·· . .... 27. 2
.4.11 other crops. . . . .• . . . . •••... ... . .. . . . . . 12. 7
=
19. 7 1 35. 7
32. 8 25. 3
47. 5 39 0
17. 8
43. 1
39. I
02. 8
30. O
7. 2
= = = = == = === = =
59. l
32. 0
8. 9
34. 0
30 9
29. 1
31. 6
40. 3
28 1
34. 4
12. 8
2'2. 8
34. 5
49. 0
16. 5
39. 5
37. 8
2'l. 7
4.S. 2
48 2
8 o
73. 0
22. 8
4. 2
Share tenant crop acres In: .. . .. ... ........ . . .'jg 4 54 3
Cotton . ... . . ..... . . . .....
Corn .. .. . ..• . •. . .. . . •· . . . •• ••••• . •.•. • .. .. 31. 6 37. 0
All other crops . . .. . . • . . • . • .• . .•. ...• .. . 9. o 8. 7
;211- 4
38. 5
35. I
2'l. 6
37. I
40. 3
37. 4
50. 3
12. 3
44. 7
49. 0
6. 3
45 7
38. 8
15. r.
46. 3
36. 3
17. 1
65. 4
29. 3
6. 3
•
1
• Includlns nonrealdeu& laborers.
1 Da&a b7 «ope
not a't'llllable.
I
9
65.
43. 4
o. 7
3 I 49. 9
~ 123.
36. 4 134. 2
880
36. 1
49. 6
I 18. 0
22. 3
15. 9
-
41. 2
31. I
27. 7
46.1
H. 7
O2
37. O I 12. 9 1 25. 4
35. 8 -18 5 34 7
6 39. O
27. 2
56. l r,a. 8
40 I 31. ~
3. 8 , 4. 3
=
45. 8
19. 3
34 9
54. 3
37 6
8. 1
61. ~
28 ,
10. l
46. 9
46. 4
6 7
14. 3
21.2 1 62.3 1 60.0 1 52.7
54.0 36.2137.0 38. 4
8. 9
3. 0
I. 5
16. 2
8. 6
42. 6
13. 4
39. 4 1 37. I 1 42. 7
22. 4
-~9. 5
31 . 7
8. 8
85. 3
10. 2
4 5
46. 6
10. 7
0. 1
34. 5
70 0 33. 0 31. O 14. 3
43. I
16 6 27. 6 31. 9 43. 0
38.
===1= = =1= == ·=
55. l
12. 5
2. 4
I
0
z
~
24. 0
54. 5
21. 5
IO.
58. :1
12. 1
18. 8
=
~
:::!
P ercent distribution
Crop acre, opPrated by:
•
l!
"";si
>
I
I
68. 0
12. 0
20. o
~ 1 82. 5 1
9198.- 2 1 57.
29., 15. 6
49. 4 [ 43. 8 ) M O [ 56
4. 1
7 40. 5
41. 0
6. 5 39. o
9 6 21. 5
134.
79. I
20 2
o. ;
1. 8
12. 7
1. 9 I
00. 2
9. I
o 7
71. 4
28. 2
o. 4
l!
PLANTATION ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION • 7
Or,anlzatlon of Cropland by Tenure
The relative importance of the various tenure groups II can be
expressed in terms of the proportion of the total crop acreage operated
by each type (table 6 and fig. 3). Croppers constituted the most
important source of labor on the plantations studied, operating approximately 46 percent of all cropland during both years. Significant
increases in acreage operated by croppers were noted in the Black
Fig. 3 - OPERATION OF CROP ACRES PER PLANTATION, BY TENURE
1937 and 1934
Crop ocr11
operated by:
0
10
20
40
30
50
Wage laborers
Shore tenants
Renters (cosh
ond stonding)
Source: Tobie 6
~
•
1937
1934
••• IIOI
' Definitions of tenure status were as follows:
Wage hand-An individual (with or without a family) who lives on the plantation and has a definite agreement with the operator to work for a more or less
definite number of months at an agreed-upon wage.
Cropper-A family which has a definite agreement with the operator whereby
the family furnishes only labor (operator furnishes work stock and implements)
in cultivating an agreed-upon acreage and receives in return a specified share of
the crop, usually one-half share or less.
Share tenant-A family which has a definite agreement with a landlord whereby
the family furnishes some or all of the work stock and implements in cultivating
an agreed-upon acreage and receives in return a share of the crop, usually more
than one-half.
Cash renter-A family which pays cash for the use of the land.
Standing rente,----A family which has a definite agreement with the landlord
whereby the family pays a specified amount of crop produoe (for example, 4
bales of cotton, 800 pounds of tobacco, etc.) and which operates independently
of the landlord.
D1gi• led by
Goog1e
8 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
Belt (B) and Lower Delta Areas, but these increases were compensated for by decreases in a number of other areas.
Wage laborers constituted the second most important source of
labor on the plantations studied. In 1937 an average of approximately
41 percent of the cropland was operated by this tenure group, an
increase of 5 percent since 1934. During this period the proportion
of the total cropland operated by wage laborers more than doubled
in the Interior Plain Area while significant increases were aJso found
in the Upper Delta, Mississippi Bluffs, and Arkansas River Areas.
Most of the other areas had experienced a net loss since 1934 in the
proportion of the total cropland operated by wage labor.
Share tenants declined in importance in all areas between 1934 and
1937 with the exception of the Atlantic Coast Plain Area where there
was a net gain of about 9 percent in crop acreage operated by this
type of labor.
Cash and standing renters, of little proportionate importance at
best, operated a smaller percent of the total crop acreage in practically
all areas in 1937 than in 1934. They had been completely ousted in
the Mississippi Bluffs and Arkansas River Areas by 1937 and were
not reported in either the Interior Plain or the Red River Area as
early as 1934.
On the whole, the data show a tendency for wage laborers to increase
in importance in the plantation areas of the Southeast at the expense
of share tenants and renters. So far, in spite of important forces
effecting changes in agricultural patterns, croppers have held their
own on the plantations surveyed. This over-all picture, however,
represents the results of major fluctuations from area to area, the
most striking of which were pointed out above.
Related to the organization of cropland by tenure is the distribution
of the crop acreage operated by each type of tenant. Approxima~ly
three-fifths of the cropland operated by croppers and share tenants
was in cotton during both crop years (table 6 and fig. 4). The remainder of the acreage was principally in com, while a relatively
small acreage was planted to various hay and soil-conserving crops
and to crops for human consumption. The proportion of the cropland operated by croppers and which was in cotton did not fluctuate
greatly in most areas, but there was some tendency toward increases
in the Upper Delta, Red River, Mississippi Bluffs, and Atlantic Coast
Plain Areas and noticeable decreases in the Black Belt (B), Lower
Delta, and Arkansas River Areas.
In the majority of the areas studied, the proportion of the cropland
operated by share tenants which was in cotton increased. While the
proportion in com decreased, share tenants still had more crop acreage
devoted to com production than did croppers during both years.
Thus, they provided at least part of the feed for their livestock.
D git,zed by
Goos le
PLANTATION ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION • 9
Fig.
4 - ORGANIZATION OF CROPLAND PER PLANTATION, BY TENURE
1937 and 1934
Plrcenl
ro
Pen:n
~
ro
1937
-
1934
Cropper
crop acres in:
401-----
--------140
30
---30
20
---20
10
10
0
0
CollDD
Com
All other
crops
Colton
Corn
All olher
crops
Collon
Corn
All other
crops
Source: Table 6.
WPA
aacn'
Not only did the proportion of all plantation crop acreage operated
by wage laborers increase from 1934 to 1937 but also more of the cropland operated by wage laborers was in cotton for the crop year 1937
than 1934. The increase for all areas was from 22 percent of all
cropland to 35 percent. Whereas the proportion of the acreage in
cotton approximately doubled in the Upper Delta, Mississippi Bluffs,
and Arkansas River Areas, it almost trebled in the Interior Plain
Area. For all areas combined, additional crop acreage devoted to
cotton in 1937 was at the expense of corn acreage, as the proportion
of land in other crops cultivated by wage laborers remained practically the same. The upward trend in cotton acreage operated by
wage laborers reflects the increase in large-scale production equipment. Under such conditions hand labor operations are performed
largely by off-plantation labor and tenant occasional labor.
COTTON YIELD
The average yield of the major crop, cotton, increased from 268
pounds of lint cotton per acre in 1934 for all areas combined to 456
pounds in 1937 (appendix table 5). Factors influencing this marked
rise in yield included more favorable climatic conditions, improved
seed, increased use of commercial fertilizer, larger acreages planted to
leguminous soil-building crops in 1936, inducements provided by the
D1gi: zed by
Goos Ie
10 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
soil conservation program of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, decreased damage from plant disease and insect infestation,
and developments in methods of production.
For all areas the increased cotton yield was of approximately equal
importance whether the land was operated by wage laborers, croppers,
or share tenants. There were considerable variations in yield by area,
however, which were probably influenced more by climatic conditions,
soils, use of fertilizers, and timely cultivation than by the type of labor.
PLANTATION LIVESTOCK
Plantation livestock owned by the average operator increased from
1934 to 1937, although the numbers were still relatively small at the
time of the later survey• (table 7). The fact that there was some
increase in the various types of livestock in most areas is associated
with the increased crop acreage and possibly with a tendency toward
diversification and expanded production for home use.
Tcrl,le 7.-Plantatlon Livntoclc,1 by ArN, 1937 and 1934
Number per p]antaUOn
ArN
Total
plantatk>llll
Mules and
1937
All-------------Atlantic Cout Plain _______
Black Belt
Black
Belt }A~------------B _____________
Upper Delta _______________
Lower Dt-lta_
Interior
Plain.··-----------_____________
Mi....l...,lppl Bluffl .• _______
Red Rlvar ... -------------Arkanaa.• River.·---------·
-
HI
31
81
19
'Ill
ID
17
'IT
16
11
eo...
bones
11184
-11137
---21
lfl
= 11 = II =
18
II
34
13
16
21
311
36
11
8
18
10
12
18
30
M
211
7
•
7
32
67
26
22
37
'6
Pigs
11134
1917
-19
= a=
18
11
11
46
23
1a
63
6
It
lM
Chickens
11184
=
19
1,
48
22
13
311
32
7
17
13
14
D
23
34
16
111
21
22
11137
=
51
73
1934
=
u
•
•
44
311
32
22
116
811
62
39
M
ell
92
1141
61
118
46
• Owned ~ the opera111r_ No data were l80Unld on the oWIWBbfp of livestock ~ an:r type of lenallt&.
The average number of work stock per plantation, including both
mules and horses, increased from 16 in 1934 to 20 in 1937. By areas,
the increases ranged as high as one-third in the Upper Delta Area.
The increase in cows per plantation from 16 to 28 was considerably
more important than the increase in work stock. Significant increases
in the average number of cows occurred in all areas except the Black
Belt (B) and Red River Areas which experienced decreases. The
numbers were increased 100 percent or more in the Atlantic Coast
Plain, Black Belt (A), Upper Delta, and Arkansas River Areas.
The greatest livestock increase from 1934 to 1937 was in the number
of pigs per plantation. For all areas combined the number practically
• No data were secured on the ownership of livestock by any iype of tenants.
PLANTATION ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION • 11
doubled. Every area had a significant increase except the Red River
and Arkansas River Areas where small reductions were made.
While the change in number of chickens per plantation from 1934
to 1937 for all areas was insignificant, the average number varied
widely from area to area. In all cases flocks were so small that they
were obviously maintained only to supply the operators' households.
Digi• led by
Google
D1 I
zedtyGoogl
Hoe H' ork.
D1Q1 led
by
Google
Digitized by
Google
Chapter II
CHANGES IN PLANTATION LABOR AND POWER
THE PLANTATION operator's objective of managing his acreage
efficiently in order to produce as large net returns as possible is directly
related to the types and combinations of labor and power utilized.
LABOR
A major consideration affecting the plantation operator's organization and operation plans is the available labor supply. Since the
plantations studied are principally devoted to cotton production,
which requires large a.mounts of hand labor during chopping and
picking seasons, the opera.tor must consider the relative availability
and economy of the various types of labor. Considerable changes in
plantation labor organization may occur from year to year, reflecting
changes in the total number of resident families and in the different
types of labor utilized (appendix table 6).
The slight increase from 15 to 16 resident families per plantation
in all areas from 1934 to 1937 (table 8 and fig. 5) can be attributed to
Tal,le 8.-Resident Families I per Plantation, by Area and Type, 1937 and 1934
Resident families per plantation
Total
planta•
tlons
Area
Total
1937
All areas ...•.•....•....
Atlanttc Coast Plain ••..•.....
Black Belt (Al-········-······
~lack Belt (B ........••••••..
rlper Delta ..•....... _•..••••
wer Dclta ... -......•••••...
1~f.(>rlor Plain ...........••.•..
_,L'slssippi Rluffll ........••...
-
246
31
31
16
79
19
17
8
'¥1
Ar:a:~raiv,i-:::::::::::::::
11
1
16
1934
Wsire
laborer
Cropper
1937
1934
1937
1934
1937
9. 7
•••
-- ------
16. 3
16.2
2. 5
2. 2
10.6
8. 7
8. 5
6.8
Zl. I
16. 5
10.6
16. 0
20. 3
31.6
7. 7
7. 7
7.1
20.1
14.0
9.8
16. 7
18. 3
36.3
3. I
2. 8
1.9
2. 7
o. 2
4. 2
0. 7
4. 7
2.4
2. 6
2. 3
2. I
4. 1
6.1
3.9
14.1
JO. g
4.8
11.9
15.3
-------1.6
0. 7
2. 2
I. 4
◄.5
6. I
26. 7
•. 7
3. I
13. 1
6.4
6.0
11.0
13. 2
26.6
Renter
(cash and
standing)
Share
tenant
1934
1937
2. 9
2. 7
0.4
I. 2
0.3
0. 6
o. 8
5. 2
3.3
1.6
2. g
0.6
3. 5
o. 3
0.3
o. 7
o. 3
0.3
6. 2
2. 2
1.6
2. 4
0.3
2. 5
0.1
3. 2
--
1934
0.8
-0..
0.2
1.1
0. 2
3. 6
0. 1
L◄
Excludes dbplaccd !amllles.
13
I)
11ti2edtivGoogle
14 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
increases in cropland operated, especially in the proportion of cropland
planted to cotton. This resulted in increased requirements for hand
labor to cultivate and harvest the expanded acreage. Wide variations
among areas in the number of resident families per plantation reflect
differences in the size of plantation operations. The only areas having
fewer families per plantation in 1937 than in 1934 were the Black
Belt (B), Mississippi Bluffs, and Arkansas River Areas.
Fig. 5 - RESIDENT FAMILIES PER PLANTATION, BY TYPE
1937 and 1934
0
4
Number
8
12
16
TolOI
Cropper
Share tenant
~1937
W1IQt laborer
11111934
Rellter
Source: Table 8.
WPA -
Croppers were the most important type of plantation labor during
both periods and accounted for approximately two-thirds of all resident
families. There was a slight increase from 1934 to 1937 in the average
number of cropper families per plantation and in the number of
plantations operated by croppers only (table 8 and appendix table 7).
In order adequately to measure changes in labor, since both crop
acreage and resident families per plantation increased between 1934
and 1937, it was necessary to hold the acreage factor constant. This
was accomplished by computing the number of resident families per
1,000 acres of cropland (appendix table 8). The average number of
such families declined from almost 37 in 1934 to 34 in 1937. All
areas reported a decrease in the number of resident families per 1,000
acres of cropland except the Upper Delta Area which had an increase
of about 8 percent. The Atlantic Coast Plain, Lower Delta, Mississippi Bluffs, Red River, and Arkansas River Areas showed the most
significant decreases.
Dgit1zedoyGoogle
PLANTATION LABOR AND POWER • 15
While the total number of resident families per 1,000 acres of cropland
declined only slightly from 1934 to 1937, the tenure status of these
families changed considerably. Renters (cash and standing) had
the greatest proportionate decline with only one-half as many families
of this type per 1,000 acres of cropland in 1937 as in 1934 (appendix
table 8). Slight declines occurred in the share tenant and cropper
groups, whereas wage laborer families held their own.
Pwedo111lnance of Ne"° Labor
Traditionally the Negro resident family has been the major source
of labor for plantations. The plantations surveyed reported approximately nine Negro families for every white family in both 1937 and
1934. 1 The majority of the plantations were operated entirely by
Negro tenants, and a slight increase in the proportion with only NegN>
families had occurred between 1934 and 1937 (table 9). Moreover,
only a small number of plantations were operated entirely by white
tenants, while approximately 37 percent of the plantations in 1937
as compared with 40 percent in 1934 were operated by both white
and Negro tenants.
Tal,le 9.-Color of Tenants on Plantations, by Area, 1937 and 193-4
Number of plantatlona, b:, oolor of tenants
White
Area
Negro
Both
Total
1937
.All areas:
Number...........................
Pert'Ont. ... .•.•.•••••••••••••••••..
:H6
100. O
II
2.0
1ll3'
1ll37
a
L2
130
81.0
111M
11117
1!11.0
111
37.0
Ill
8
17
8
II
18
12
8
2'
7
7
II
8
2
HII
1----1---------·~
31
13
16
31
16
-a2 -I1 112178 113168
Atlantic C",0ast Plain.........................
Black Belt (A)...............................
Black &It (B)...............................
Pl~~ ~:::. .... ............................
Intulnr Plain.. . . . . ..•...•.•••.••••••••••••••
M ississlppl Bluffs............................
Red River...................................
Arkansas River..............................
:
17
~
111
11
12
10
22
7
II
198'
..,
98
18
14
8
lN
C
II
10
7
8
Utlllzatlon of Off-Plantation Labor
The expansion in cotton acreage and the high yields in the good
cotton year 1937 increased the demand for off-plantation seasonal
labor. Approximately 53 percent of the plantations studied reported
using some off-plantation seasonal labor for cotton chopping and
picking, although the proportions varied widely among areas (table
10). In the Red River Area more than four out of five of the planta1 Data on file in the Division of Research, Work Projects Administration.
W88hington, D. C.
o 1111
edt1vGoogle
16 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
tions used off-plantation seasonal labor, while in the Black Belt (A),
Upper Delta, and Mississippi Bluffs Areas about two out of three
plantations used this type of labor.
Tol,le 10.-Cotton Aaeage Chopped or Picked by Off-Plantation Labor, by Area and
Tenure of Operator, 1937
Area
All areas _________________
Atlantic Coast Plain __________
Bisel< Belt (Ai--- _____________
Blad< Belt (B -------···-----Upper Delta
Delta ___________________
____ ---··-····---Lower
Interior Plain _________________
Mls.slsslppl BJuffa _____________
Red River _____________________
Arkansas River ________________
Percent 1 or cotton IICl't'Sgo Perront, or cotton BCteage
Plantschopped by off-plantation
C:cked by olf-plant,tion
tlons relabor
bor
portin~
off-plantalion
Owner- Cropper
Share
Owner- Cropper
BhorP
labor
operator•
tenant operator 1
tenant
130
12
111
4
M
6
2
16
13
6
17
12
18
-llO
28
11
11
D
211
- - -- - -- - - - - - ---1
6
36
11
12
- - -IV
=
32
1
Ill
1
a
2
'
2
1
-2
-8a
---
D
36
a
6
42
28
D
39
41
34
11
12
8
16
13
14
17
14
-
16
1&
10
-
t Weighted average.
1
Cultivate<! by wage labor.
Although less than one-fifth 2 of the total cotton acreage of the
owner-operators in all areas was chopped by off-plantation seasonal
labor, the proportion rose to more than one-fourth in the Lower
Delta and Arkansas River Areas. The percent of the total cotton
acreage of croppers and share tenants chopped by off-plantation
seasonal labor was insignificant except for share tenants in the
Atlantic Coast Plain Area.
The increase in cotton acreage plus a high yield per acre also required additional labor for picking the 1937 crop. More than onethird of the owner-operators' cotton was picked by off-plantation
seasonal labor. Only the operators in the Black Belt (B) and Interior
Plain Areas made little use of off-plantation labor for picking.
Although the proportions of the cropper and share tenant cotton
picked by off-plantation seasonal labor were only 11 and 12 percent,
respectively, for all areas, it is significant that the volume of production exceeded the amount the family labor supply could pick.
Type of Off-Plantation Labor
Nonresident seasonal labor was of two types: (1) laborers living
within daily commuting distance of the plantation who were classified
as local laborers, and (2) laborers who remained on the plantation
premises during the period of seasonal employment. This latter
group was composed of migratory laborers.
1
Weighted average.
Dgit1zedoyGoogle
One-half Row Cotton Cultivation.
Digit 2ed r,y
Goog I
D1gi; zed by
Google
PLANTATION LABOR AND POWER• 17
Transporfaflon
During the cotton-chopping period of the 1937 crop season, the
majority of the local seasonal laborers furnished their own transportation, although the operators of 15 plantations reported transporting
laborers, mostly from neighboring towns and villages (appendix
table 9). The average distance traveled to work by local laborers
employed for cotton chopping was 2 miles. On the other hand,
plantation operators using migratory labor had to furnish all of the
transportation, and the laborers came an average distance of 15 miles.
During the cotton-picking season a much larger number of plantations used nonresident seasonal labor. Local laborers, who were
employed on 89 plantations, again usually furnished their own transportation, although the average distance traveled by this type of
labor was extended to 4 miles. The operators of 35 plantations
provided the transportation for their local off-plantation labor.
Moreover, 30 of the 34 operators using migratory laborers for cotton
picking furnished the transportation. These laborers were usually
brought in by truck. The average distance between the place migratory laborers were recruited and the plantation on which they were
employed was 79 miles.
CHANGES IN POWER
An increase in the average number of work stock per plantation
between 1934 and 1937 was reported for all areas as a result of the
significant increase in crop acreage (table 11). In most areas, however, the number of work stock per 1,000 acres of cropland remained
about stationary. The Upper Delta was the only area in which an
Tal,le 11 .-Power per Plantation and per 1,000 Aaes of Cropland, by Area, 1937
and 1934
,\'orkst.oct
Ana
Tnlal
plantatlons
Crop acres
per pl11ntat10n 1
1937
11134
3.15
191
487
285
Per planta-
tion
Tractors
Per 1,000
acres or
cropland
11137
1934
11137
11134
13
9
11
8
18
10
12
18
39
47
49
39
47
43
87
45
Per 1,000
Per plRntation
llCres or
cropland
1937
1ll34
1ll37
0.3
0.2
0.1
I.I
0. 5
0.9
3.1
3.1
2. 7
0.3
2. 2
2. i
1.8
11134
- - - - - - -- --- - - - - - - - - 246
411
338
20
18
49
47
0.9
0.6
2.2
1.8
All areas __ ----·····--·· ------ ----= ---- ----275
Atlantic CO!ISt Plain.... - .•..
31
11
219
9
40
41
0.4
0.3
1.5
1.4
Black Belt (A) ...• --··-····-Black Belt (B) ... ·-····-··-··
Upper Delta_·······---·--···
Lower Delta-.•··-···--······
Interior Plain ____ ._._ .........
:Mississippi Bluffa..... - .••...
Red River·---·-··--······-··
Arkansas River .. ·-·········-·
31
16
79
19
17
'¥1
15
11
2/jg
3.14
372
707
8.56
171
419
149
267
29S
519
784
24
13
15
21
38
35
50
45
30
M
54
34
41
ft\
58
43
o.e
1.6
0. 7
0.1
0.8
1.9
1.51
0. 3I
1.0
1.4
I
0. 7
0.6
2.6
3.4
0.4
1.0
I. 9
1.8
1 Ope111ted by wage laboren and croppers only. Acreage of share tenants and renten was operated with
lenllnt-owned power.
0 g1t1zed by
Goog Ie
18 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
important expansion in the use of work stock in relation to crop
acreage was reported.
Animal power was supplemented in 1937 by an average of 0.9
tractors per plantation, an increase of 50 percent since 1934. Increases in the number of tractors per plantation were reported in all
areas except the Interior Plain.
Because of the wide variation in the number and ultilization of
tractors in the areas studied, the relative importance of the tractor
as a source of plantation power cannot be definitely determined, but
its increasing significance is obvious.• While the number of work
stock per 1,000 acres of cropland increased from 47 to 49 for all areas
combined between 1934 and 1937, tractors increased from 1.8 to 2.2
per 1,000 acres. Moreover, the increase in work stock per 1,000
acres of cropland was confined to the Upper Delta Area while tractor
power increased on this basis in all areas except the Lower Delta,
Interior Plain, and Arkansas River Areas.
The wide variation in the number of work stock and tractors per
1,000 acres of cropland wa.s largely due to the utilization of both types
of power on the same plantations. In 1937 more than one-hali of
the plantations· surveyed used combinations of work stock and
tractors for power (table 12). During this crop year only 2 plantations used tractor power exclusively, while 113 plantations still
depended entirely on work stock. Of the 133 plantations reporting
tractors in 1937, 64 reported 1 tractor, 47 reported 2 tractors, and 22
reported 3 or more tractors (table 13 and fig. 6).
Taf,le 12.-Type of Power Used on Plantations, by Area, 1937
Type of power
Total p l a n . 1 - - - - - - - - - tation.s
Work stock Tractor
Workatoet
only
only
and tractor
All areas ........................................ .
___
,
246
At.lantlc CoMt Plain ........•..........................
Black Belt (A) ......•...•...........•.•.•.•.•.•.•..•...
Black Belt (B) ....•.•..••••••...•••••.••.....•••••..••.
Upper Delta .............••...................••.•.•...
Lower Delta ..........•.•••.......•.•.•••.•.•.•••••....
Interior Pl11in .....•.......•..............••...•........
Missi~sippi Bluffs ..•..................•.•.....•..••.••.
Red River .........................•..........•........
Arkansas River ......••...••••..•.......•.......•......
113
2
lSl
1----1----1----
31
31
16
79
1g
17
20
23
12
16
10
16
413
'¥1
13
14
16
11
2
3
11
8
4
g
2
12
8
• "Although the greatest degree of mechanization is found in the North Central
States, the highest rates of recent mechanization are found in the South and
Southwest. Mississippi leads the Old South both in number of tractors added
since 1930 and in the rate of increase; the number of tractors increasing from
5,542 in 1930 to 14,703 in 1938, an increl\Seof 165 percent." Hamilton, C. Horace,
"The Social Effects of Recent Trends in the Mechanization of Agriculture,"
Rural Sociology, Vol. 4, 1939, pp. 6-7.
I)
11ti2edtivGoogle
f'urm Secu, it y A d111 i11 i Ytm tiu n (La11v
v).
'
One -Row Collon Cult ivati on .
D,
I
zed by
Google
....
Digitized by
Google
PLANTATION LABOR AND POWER • 19
Taf>le 13.-Number of Tractors per Plantation, by Area, 1937
Total plan-
tations reportlng
tractors
Area
A.Jlareu_________________________________________
Atlantlc Coast Plain___________________________________
Black Belt (A) ____ - __ ---------------------------------Black Belt (B)_________________________________________
Number of tractors
1---~-
2
8orm«e
133
47
84
1----1----1---
11
8
4
Upper Delta. ____ -------------------------------------Lower DPlta_ -----------------------------------------Interior
Plain
____ -------------------------------------Mississippi
B!utrs______________________________________
1K
9
H2
Red River ___ -----------------------------------------Arkansas River._--------------------------------------
Ill
8
.,
9
3
•
22
2
2
1
fl
4
II
II
II
8
a
H
.,2
8
8
2
II
Fig. 6 - TRACTORS PER PLANTATION, 1937
Plantations ~0_ _ _ _..,.10_ _ _ _ _20.....-_ _ ___,30-_ _ _ _4...0_ _ _ __
having:
No tractors
I tractor
2 troc:tors
3 or more
troctors
Source: TablH 12 and 13.
WPA S30I
The crop acreage handled by tra.ctor a.nd work stock combinations
in the various operations involved in cotton production indicates the
importance of tractors on pla.nta.tions (appendix table 10). .Almost
two-fifths of the crop acreage fla.tbroken in 1937 wa.s handled by
tractors. In the Mississippi Bluffs a.nd Red River Area.s tractors
were used for more tha.n 50 percent of the fla.tbrea.king. In other
a.rea.s the practice wa.s followed for 7 to 47 percent of the acreage.
In seedbed prepa.ra.tion, i. e., prepa.ra.tion of la.nd for planting, a.pproxima.tely one-third of the tote.I crop acreage wa.s handled by tractors,
wherea.s among individual a.rea.s the use of tractors ranged from 2
percent of the acreage in the Bia.ck Belt (B) Area to 57 percent in the
Red River Area.. In planting, work stock were used on four-fifths
of the a.creage in 1937. As a. matter of fa.ct, 57 percent of the planting
in all a.rea.s wa.s done with one-horse equipment. The preference for
the use of work stock for cultivating a.swell as planting is shown by
the fact that only one-fifth of the crop a.creage was cultivated with
tractors.
The increasing use of mechanized power ha.s several important
corollaries. For one thing it will decrease the need for feed production
Dlgi::zed by
Google
20 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
for livestock and, with unrestricted cotton production, might induce
operators to plant an even higher proportion of cropland to cotton
than in the past. Another change associated with the increase in
mechanization has been the trend toward an increase in the proportion
of total cropland and of cotton acreage operated with wage labor.'
Plantation operators were asked to give, in order of their importance,
factors which, in their opinion, were retarding the shift toward gre.ater
mechanization. The major factor as reported by the operators was
the lack of available capital at a low rate of interest (table 14). Labor
was given as the second major factor hindering the shift to mechanized
power. This was due to the need for an adequate labor supply during
the peak seasons of chopping and picking cotton and to the lack of
skilled tractor operators.
Taflle 74.-Fadon Retarding Mechanization as Reported by Operaton, 1937
Oper,,ton
reporttngt
Factors retarding mechanization
Problem of ftnanclng porch1111e _____________________ ---------------------------------- ___ _
Labor
Unsuitable
-- -- ----land- -_________________________________________________________________________
--- ---- - -- -- -- - --- ---- ---------- ------ ---- ------------ ------ ------ --- ---_
Lesser efficiency of tractors ______________________________________________________________ _
PrefereDC'empply
for work
----------------------------------_
Anfllcfent
of stO<'k
work ______________________________
stoct: __________________________________________________________
Size of plantation __ • _____________ ----------------- - _--- -- --- - - -- ----- ___________________ _
Other _________ ------------------------------------ - ----- - ---- -------- --- - -- --- -- ----- ---I
In aome -
operators
1111
Q8
74
21
lll
16
14
:112
reported more than 1 factor.
A number of operators reported that the size of their plantations
and the prevalence of small irregular-shaped fields retarded their
shift to greater mechanization. Tractors were definitely specified
as less efficient than work stock, especially for the cultivation of crops,
by 21 operators, while 34 operators preferred using work stock or had
an ample number for plantation operation.
Mechanization has not been the only factor responsible for the reduction in the number of resident families per 1,000 acres of cropland,
but tractors have played a major role in this reduction. In 1934
there were about 25 resident families per tractor on the plantations
surveyed, but by 1937 there were only 18 resident families per tractor 1
as a result of increased mechanization.
PROSPECTS FOR INCREASED MEOfANIZATION
Within the areas studied rather large acreages of level cropland are
subject to mechanization. The fact that mechanization or even
4 See also Langsford, E. L. and Thibodeaux, B. H., Plantation Organization
and Operation in the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Area, Technical Bulletin No. 682,
U. 8. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., May 1939, pp. 27 and 54.
1 Data on file in the Division of Research, Work Projects Administration,
Waahington, D. C.
0191• 2P.d by
G oog1e
PLANTATION LABOR AND POWER• 21
larger horse-drawn equipment is less economical on small irregularshaped fields, very sandy soils, and a hilly topography than one- or
two-horse equipment, however, together with the availability of
large amounts of family labor which have little or no alternative employment, will continue to be important retarding factors in the
increased mechanization in the Southeast.
Cotton, more than any other major crop, has resisted the general
trend toward mechanization in agriculture, and such mechanization
as has ta.ken place to date has involved only part of the major operations in cultivation. Thinning and hoeing, like picking, are tasks
that still require an immense amount of tedious hand labor.
A considerable saving in labor in cotton production prior to harvest
might be effected through the use of one-row equipment instead of the
one-half row equipment now being used in seedbed preparation and
cultivation on a large number of plantations. Furthermore, a considerable proportion of the labor of hoeing and chopping might be
eliminated by the use of a hill-dropper planter and delinted seed.
Mechanical means of performing the chopping operation have been
devised but a.a yet they are in the early stages of development. The
mechanical cotton chopper, even if perfected, together with complete
mechanization of seedbed preparation, planting, and cultivating will
not remove completely the need for hoe labor, especially in areas of
heavy rainfall, which is conducive to heavy weed growth.
Although an increase in the number of plantations using various
laborsaving devices for preharvest operations may be expected, the
rate of adoption in the areas surveyed will be gradual and will even
be retarded by the fact that large amounts of labor are needed for
picking. In many cases it will continue to be economically advantageous to insure an adequate supply of harvest labor by employing
the laborers throughout the year.
The perfection of an efficient and economical mechanical cotton
picker would serve to a large extent to remove harvesting operations
as an obstacle in are.as suitable for mechanization. The use of such a
machine would no doubt provide an important stimulus toward the
use of large-scale equipment for preharvest operations as well and
would thus result in the displacement of many agricultural workers.
There seems little cause for alarm at the present time, however, even
though certain cotton-picking machines are reported to have approached practical usefulness. Any adoption of such machinery may
be expected to be very gradual as long as cheap labor is readily
available. 0
1 Home, Roman L. and McKibben, Eugene G., Changea in Farm Power and
Equipment: Mechanical Cotton Picker, Report No. A-2, National Research Project,
Works ProgreBB Administration, Philadelphia, Pa., August 1937, p. 18.
D1gi: zed by
Goos Ie
22 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
Problems which still remain to be solved are the production of
mechanically harvested, high-grade cotton; the overcoming of the
difficulties in ginning mechanically picked cotton; and the breeding
of new strains of cotton varieties that will make for better "pickability" on the part of mechanical pickers. 7 Taking into account all
of the factors in the situation, therefore, one is forced to agree with
E. A. Johnston of the International Harvester Company "that there
is absolutely no likelihood of mechanical cotton harvesters being
produced and sold in quantities sufficient to revolutionize agriculture
in the cotton-growing areas in the near future."•
7 Bennett, Charles A., "The Relation of Mechanical Harvesting to the Production of High-Grade Cotton," AgricuUural ETl{lineeriTl{I, Vol. 19, September 1938,
p. 388.
• "The Evolution of the Mechanical Cotton Harvester," Agricultural ETl{liAUriTl{I, Vol. 19, September 1938, p. 388.
D1gi:zed by
Google
Four-Row Cotton Cultivatio n.
D1
i'ledbyGoogle
01111 zed by
Google
Chapter Ill
CREDIT
A
PLANTATION is a business enterprise for which the operator
may use credit to provide capital assets and to meet current operating
expenses. Loans obtained for investment in fixed assets are secured
by mortgages on the plantation and are cla..~ified as long-term debts.
Loans for current operating expenses are short-term loans and are
usually secured by chattel mortgages on the crop, livestock, and
equipment.
OPERATORS' LONG-TERM INDEBTEDNESS
As a result of increased plantation profits operators have been
enabled to liquidate part of their debts in recent years. The number
reporting long-term indebtedness declined by 22 percent between
1934 and 1937, and at the same time the operators with debts reduced
their indebtedness from an average of $13,018 to $11,914 or about 8
percent (table 15). Wide differences appeared among areas, although
the number reporting long-term debts decreased in all areas except
the Black Belt (A) and Lower Delta Areas (appendix table 11).
During the same period the indebtedness per operator reporting was
materially reduced in all areas except the Black Belt (B), Upper
Delta, and Mississippi Bluffs Areas.
Among long-term loans, mortgages and bank and merchant loans
had decreased in relative importance since 1934, while loans from
governmental credit agencies, by open accounts, and from other
sources rose correspondingly. The increases can be attributed not
only to expanded credit facilities and to lower interest rates by governmental rather than other agencies but also to the fact that, as the
plantation operators were able to repay their obligations, further credit
channels were opened up.
Mortgages were the predominant· type of long-term debt in both
years. There was a definite trend toward an increase in Government
23
D1gi• zed by
Google
24 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
loans as a result of refinancing at a lower rate of interest (appendix
table 12). Mortgages of all types showed lower annual rates of
interest in 1937 than in 1934; the average rate declined from 5.6
percent to 4.8 percent.
Tal,le 75.-0perators' Long-Term Debts, by Type, 1937 and t93-4
Item
11137
Total operators------------.---------------------------------------------------__
11134
2441
248
UlO
128
82. 0
89.1
10.2
LS
0.8
I===~===
Operators reporting debts ______ --- --------------- -----------------------------...
Debt per operator reporting debte __- ----------------------------------------. .. .
Percent of operators with debts reporting specltled type of debt: •
Mortgage .. __ ...... - . --- - --- -- -- . ---- -- -- ---- --- --- -- --- --- -- -- --------- -- - . Bank .... ____ . ____ -- - -- -- -- __ ------ -.. - ---- -- -- --- -... - ---- ----- ------- - ____ .
Merchant_. ___ ._---- -- --- -- --------------- -- ---- --- -- --- ----- ----- _-------- Open account __ - ---------- ------------------------------ -------------------Government __ --- ---- ---- - --- --- --- - -- ---- --- -- - --- ---- - -- . -- - -- -· - -- -- ----- Other. ____ -- -- -- -- ------------ ---------- ------------ ----------------- -- --- -1 For data by areas see appendix table 11.
1 Some operators reported more than I type
1
l====I====
Sll.1114
$13,018
l====I====
8. 0
1.0
2.0
11.0
4.0
8. I
:u
of debt.
OPERATORS' SHORT-TERM CREDIT
Since the plantation operator is usually the primary source of
credit for tenant families (except renters), he must be able to secure
adequate credit facilities not only for plantation crop production but
also for subsistence advances to resident families. 1 In many cases
the operator secures production credit from several sources and reallocates part of this credit to his tenant families at an increased rate of
interest. Security for short-term credit is generally a first lien on
crops under cultivation, especially the major money crop which in
this case is cotton. When a first lien is held by the lending agency
on this crop, other liens may be made against livestock and implements.
Thus, while credit agencies look to the plantation operator directly
for repayment, the operator looks to his tenants both for his share of
net profits and for repayment of his credit advances.
Banks were the principal source of short-tem1 loans in both 1937
and 1934 although there was a marked reduction between the two years
in the proportion of operators using this type of credit (table 16).
Credit secured from merchants also decreased in importance as an
increasing number of operators obtained credit from governmental
agencies. Fertilizer companies, while the least important source of
credit in each year, provided credit for twice as many operators in
1937 as in 1934. The number of operators obtaining loans was
somewhat less than the total number of loans reported as some operators reported borrowing from more than one source.
1
See pp. 26-28.
o r:i,11 ea t1y
Goog1e
CREDIT • 25
The average amounts of credit obtained from Government agencies
and fertilizer companies had more than doubled since 1934, while loans
secured from banlqi had increased by about one-third (table 16). On
the other hand, merchant credit for 1937 operations was less than onehalf of the 1934 average amount. The duration of these loans was
usually 3 to 4 months regardless of the source.
Tcrf>le 76.-0perators' Short-Term Credit{ by Type,1 Amount, and Duration of Loan
and Annual Rate of Interest, 1937 and 1934 1
Avenae•
Operatan reporting short-
Typeofloan
term c:ndlt
11137
Government ________________ . ______ ._
Merchant_._ -- - -- ---- •••••••.•..••. -
Fertlllrer _______ -··········· ·····-- -Bank __ • -········-. __ ••••••••••• --- --
38
II
&
&
11134
30
13
3
109
Amoant of loan
11187
11134
$11,095
1,275
893
3,098
'2,828
2,919
300
2.8411
Duration In
months
11137
8.6
a.,
2. 8
a.a
1111114
3.1
3.9
3.7
3.4
Annual rate of
Interest
11137
11.11
16. 6
22.11
16.0
11134
11.8
16.0
80.0
16.3
• A small nnmber of plantations reported current 108ns of other than the sl)ecl1led types. Al.'!o, 2 plantations reported Government Joans and 1 plantation a bank 108n In 1937 and 2 plantations merchant l01t,DS and
Cplantations bank loans In 1934, but did not give the amoant of the 108IIII or of the Interest.
l For data by areas see appenda table 13.
• Arithmetic mean.
Usury laws are inoperative under the one-crop cotton plantation
system insofar as legal rates of interest are involved. Practically
all short-term credit is based on a per annum rate regardless of the
length of time for which the advance is made. Although plantation
operators and tenants alike use credit for periods usually from 3 to
8 months, they pay interest for a full year. Thus, an operator or
tenant using $100 at 10 percent for 4 months must pay $10, a rate of
30 percent per annum.
Slight increases occurred in the annual rate of interest for Government, merchant, and bank loans between 1934 and 1937, but the
average annual interest .rate for the relatively unimportant fertilizer
loans declined from 30 percent to 23 pereent. Although interest on
Government loans was lower than on other types, it too was extremely
high, averaging almost 12 percent per annum in both years.
By areas, the number of operators reporting the various types of
loans was usually too small to provide a basis for comparison (appendix table 13). Interest rates were consistently high from area to area
but the Atlantic Coast Plain and Black Belt (A) Areas had particularly
exorbitant annual rates of interest for merchant and fertilizer loans.
Although the total number of families on the plantations whose
operators reported borrowing for current expenses declined by approximately 40 percent, the average amount borrowed per plantation and
per family rose (table 17). The increases were 44 percent and 57
Dg1112edoyGooglc
26 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
percent, respectively. In 1937 borrowing for production averaged
$3,532 per plantation and $252 per resident family. With few exceptions, marked increases in borrowing per plantation and per family
were reported for plantations with widely varying numbers of resident
families.
Ta&le f7.-0perators' Short-Term Credit, by Number of Resident Families, 1937 and
1934
Amount of credit
Operators
reporting credit
Per plantation
Nnmber or resident ramOlea
1PM
1937
-
Total famlllea
11137
11134
11137
11134
--
Per famllJ
1937
TotaJ _____ ------- ------------ --
101
1157
1,4111
2,388
SB, 632
$2,466
S252
Fewer
than IO________________________
Camlliel--------------10-14 ramOles
ll3
711
21
4
G
G
:16
269
268
16
15
8
64
136
163
482
304
273
1, 7116
3,339
4,800
6,325
6,550
8,000
1,029
2,090
3. 276
2,1153
3,813
6,083
6,976
3M
272
300
2711
341
182
8,8118
8,633
181
l&-111 ramllies
_ --------------------Z---24
ramllies ..
.. ______________________
2&-29 famllies. _______________________
30---34 ramDle•--------------------- ___
35-39
families-_-------------------40 families
or more ____________________.
1
-
10
G
2
II
aa
-
4112
324
217
1115
74
11111
-
-
11134
$191
ta>
179
1112
132
141
1!17
1119
150
TENANTS' SHORT-TERM CREDIT
The availability of short-term credit is related to tenure. The
renter may secure credit from the plantation operator or negotiate
loans elsewhere, offering liens on his cash crop, livestock, and
implements as security. In contrast, the cropper is dependent upon
the plantation operator for credit, both for current crop expenses and
for subsistence, and can offer only a lien on his crop as security. In
'addition to his crop the share tenant can offer as security such farming
equipment as he may own, but he too must generally rely on the
plantation operator and not on outside sources for credit.
Tenants are usually advanced all of their share of current crop
expenses prior to the beginning of the cotton harvest. In addition,
subsistence or living expenses are advanced during the crop-cultivating
season, extending ordinarily from the beginning of March to the.latter
part of August or into September. In years following disastrously
low incomes, however, credit advances for tenant living may begin as
early as January, 2 and some plantation operators make advances to
their tenants throughout the year. The tenant's share of the
value of cottonseed above ginning charges usually is sufficient to
provide for his living expenses during the cotton harvest period, and
his returns after settling with the landlord for the crop carry him
through the winter months.
2 Langsford, E. L. and Thibodeaux, B. H., Plantation Organization and Operation in the Yazoo-Missis8ippi Della Area, Technical Bulletin No. 682, U. 8.
Deoartmcnt of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., May 1939, p. 47.
D1gi• zed by
Google
J."a,.nt t; e<·11rity Adm i ui 11 tru ti on (Lau yc).
Collecli11g Collo11 Pickers.
D1a1 zed by
Google
Og111z
dbyGooglc
CREDIT• 27
The total amount of credit advanced by the plantation operator
per tenant family is determined largely by the prospective value of the
current cotton crop. It is also influenced by the individual tenant's
gain or loss during the preceding year. Upon the basis of these factors
the plantation operator decides upon the amount of credit he can
safely advance.
The dependence of tenants upon plantation operators for subsistence advances is shown by the fact that approximately 9 out of 10
plantations made such advances in both 1937 and 1934 (table 18).
Although there had been a slight decline since 1934 in the number of
plantations advancing subsistence, the amount advanced per family
per month was larger in 1937 in all areas except the Black Belt
(B), Interior Plain, and Red River Areas. For all areas combined the
average monthly advance rose from $13.70 to $14.50. This suggests
a slightly better economic situation among plantation families. Because of increased prices for the items the plantation family must buy,
however, it is doubtful if any real improvement in living conditions
occurred. Regardless of whether there was any advance, it is obvious
that such limited amounts, coupled with the general inadequacy of
production for home use, could provide only for an extremely low
level of living.
The number of months during which subsistence was advanced did
not change significantly on the average. A substantially shorter
period was reported for the Atlantic Coast Plain, Interior Plain, and
Red River Areas, however, and a longer period for the Black Belt (B)
Area.
Under the short-term plantation credit system whereby the plantation operator is the guarantor to the len•ding agencies, he assumes the
risk of crop success or failure. In order to lower his risk the operator
raises the tenant's rate of interest above the rate he himself pays to
allow for crop losses and for defaults, good risks among tenants tending to compensate for poor risks. Since fertilizer and seed loans are
made to the tenant at the beginning of the crop season, the interest
paid is for a loan carried throughout the season. In contrast the tenant is advanced a specified sum each month for subsistence. Such
advances may begin in April and repayment be made in October, but
the tenant pays interest on the total monthly advances for 6 months
although he uses only one-sixth of the total amount for 6 months and
one-sixth for as short a period as 1 month.
The average duration of subsistence advances to tenants on all plantations studied decreased slightly from 3.6 months in 1934 to 3.4
months in 1937 (appendix table 14). At the same time, the weighted
annual rate of interest declined from about 40 percent to 36 percent.
Even so, the rates remained two to three times as high as those p~id by
0 git1zed oy
210973°---40----4
Google
28 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
operators for short-term credit. Significant decreases in tenant interest
rates on subsistence advances occurred in the Black Belt (B) and
Arkansas River Areas. All other areas showed slight reductions in
average annual interest rates except the Interior Plain and Red River
Areas.
Ta&le 18.---Practice of Operators in Granting Subsistence Advances, by Area, 1937
and 1934
Ana
ADllrMI:
11137______________
11134 _____________
A&lalltlc
C',0ut Plain: ._._
111a7 ________________
11134 .. ·-·--··--····----·
Black Belt (A):
11187_. ___ ... ·-- --------11184.- .. ••····---------Black ~it (B):
11187. ·-. ___ --- _. -------1934 ...... -------------Upper Delta:
11187.. ___ - ------------ ••
11134 .... ----··---------Lower Dt,Jta:
11187. ·---- --- -- • ---- -- ••
11134 .... ··-- ·----------lntffior Plain:
1937 ___ . __ . _-- -- -------11134 ........ __ -- -- ----··
Mllslselppl :Rluff1:
1937. ·- ·---- -- ---------11134 ... __ -- ------ -·----Bed River:
11187·-·-----------·--···
11134. __ ----------------Arll:auau River:
11187... --- ---- --- ------ 1934 _______ ----- --- -- ---
°I:::"
=
tie
Kl
81
31
-
-
=
·• nc
,.
- -·
-
Montbl families received ad·
Openton
reporttns
number
per
of
family
months I.amount
!amlllell
II
ofad•
received than
II
ad-
oc:- re,:t
Total
Ad·
U::Ut
8
7
8
21
111
40
-
SH.IIO
13. '/0
=
=
215
2'C
,.
-
4
10
441
17
88
94
- = =
1
2 a 2
- - 2 2
-1 -2 48 104
- -1 57 21
1
4
2
7.8
7.7
2
7
1
1
6
8.4
7.:1
II
4
-10
6
1.6
1
8.7
-- -4
2
8
1
I. 7
I.I
1
1
1.8
23
28
18
18
111
UI
11.IIO
11.IIO
18
18
-
'I'll
'I'll
71
18. 21
15. IIO
71
71
1
8
14
71
4
88
441
111
16
1
1
2
10
10
2
a
8
1
1
6
8
21
17
-8
8
2
a
a
2
1
5
4
2
2
-2
17
16
,,,,,,
17
13. 10
18. 10
'II
'II
14. '/0
12.40
16
111
12
10
18. IIO
17. IIO
11
10
11
17. '/0
14. ao
17
11
a
-,,,'II -2
1:1 10 111
17
10
11
1
1
a
7.1
8
11.ao
8. IIO
- = =
I.I
4
7
12. 21
16
11
8.4
11.2
•
11.ao
24
8
4
11
8
8
IS
a
'II
111
111
-
11 f'amllilll
reor oelved
12
ad·
12
15.10
12. 21
28
,.
II
or
10
7
7
'II
11
Aver-
numbir
of
montbl
4
6
-7 -
-
-1 -2 -1 -2
t
1
1
1
1
--
1
1
7.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
7.11
1.0
I. I
1 Arithmetic mean.
I Data 110t avallable for 1 plantation ID tbe Upper Delta Ania, and data fnr 7 plantations In the LoDelta Area Included Interest on advaneea. With U- 7 IDcluded, tbe averap for the Lower Delta Ana
would have been SI 2.30.
1 Data uot available for 1 plantation In tbe Blaoll: Belt (A) Area.
The high interest rates paid by tenants are a major factor in preventing their rise up the agricultural ladder. The interest rates increase indebtedness to such an extent that they automatically bar
any accumulation of resources by a large proportion of all plantation
families. At the same time, pressure to pay off debts through production and sale of a cash crop is a strong influence against diversification and the production of varied field and garden crops for home
consumption.
oa,1,,s-JbvGoogle
Chapter IV
PLANTATION INCOME
THE FINANCIAL operations involved in plantation management are
complicated by the variety of activities engaged in. These normally
expand as the size of the unit and number of resident families increase.
The total investment varies widely among individual units but generally represents a rather heavy capital outlay. The long-term debts
of many plantations are due to this outlay. Furthermore, current
plantation operating expenses are usually large because the operator
must furnish working capital for himself and his tenants. When
crops are harvested, the operator generally assumes the marketing
responsibility in order to guarantee the repayment of the principal and
interest on credit advanced to tenants. In many eases pressure is
exerted by the lending agencies for repayment of the operator's debts,
thus making immediate sale of the product necessary even though
it involves lower prices for the plantation operator. The expansion
of the plantation unit, especially an increase in crop acreage, changes
in the proportions of cropland planted to cotton and other crops, variations in yield, changes in both type and amount of labor, expansion of
mechanization, differences in payments received for participation in
the Agricultural Adjustment Administration program, and variations
in the ratio of prices paid to those received for plantation commodities
(appendix table 15) have definite effects on current expenditures and
on gross and net plantation incomes.
INVESTMENT PER PLANTATION
To obtain plantation investment, field enumerators were instructed
to enter values for land, buildings, livestock, and machinery at conservative market values, not at low assessed or high speculative values.
The value of gins, commissaries, and the operator's residence if off the
plantation was omitted.
29
o
1i11zedbvGoogle
30 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
The investment per plantation for all areas increased from $31,378
in 1934 to $37,504 in 1937 or by about one-fifth (table 19). Moreover,
all areas reported significant increases except the Black Belt (B),
Interior Plain, and Red River Areas which had had definite decreases
in investment per plantatiort since 1934 {appendix table 16).
Tcr•le 19.-lnvestment per Plantation I and per Crop Acre for Land, Buildings, Livestoclc,
and Machinery, 1937 and 1934 2
Inve8tm~nt per
crop acre
Investment per plantation
Item
1937
11134
1917
Amount
Percent
Amount
1113'
Peroent
TotaJ ___ ---------·-· ----- - . -
$37, rot
100.0
$31,378
100.0
S7V
$75
Land._.------------···-······-···
Bu0dlnf(S. ________ . _______ . ___ . _..
Livestock ______________________ ...
Machinery ________________
27,874
4,814
2. 947
1, 8611
74. 3
12. 8
23,484
4,366
1,996
1,632
li8
10
&
6
M
7.9
74. 8
13.ll
II. 4
5.0
4.9
10
5
4
1 O&ta not avallshl~ for I plantation In the Lower Delta Area In 1937 and for 2plnntatlon, In the Black
Belt (B) Area, 1 plantation In the Upper Delta Area, and 2 plantatlolll! In the Arkansas River Area In
1934.
t For data by areas lMl8 appendix table 18.
Among the plantations surveyed, slightly less than 75 percent of the
total average investment was in land. The proportionate investment
in buildings declined slightly from 1934 to 1937, as expansion in buildings failed to keep pace with expansion in acreage. Investments in
livestock and in machinery both showed tendencies to increase and
constituted approximately 8 and 5 percent, respectively, of the total
in 1937. There was considerable variation among areas in the
proportion of the total investment allocated to land, buildings, livestock, and machinery (appendix table 16). Land, for example, accounted for from less than two-thirds to more than four-fifths of the
total in the various areas.
For all plantations investment per crop acre rose from $75 in
1934 to $79 in 1937, although only four of the nine areas had increases.
The investment in land, livestock, and machinery per crop acre
increased, while the investment in buildings remained the same.
GROSS PLANTATION INCOME
As obtained in the survey, gross income per plantation included
current cash receipts from farming operations only for the crop years
1937 and 1934, respectively. Financial returns from plantationoperated nonfarm enterprises, such as commissaries and cotton gins,
and inventories of plantation-owned seed and feed on hand were not
reported. Furthermore, no attempt was made to evaluate commodities produced for home consumption nor to place values on
D Qllt ed lly
Goog Ie
PLANTATION INCOME• 31
perquisites, such as house rent, wood, and water, which were free to
families living on the plantations. Cash benefits received from participation in the AAA program were credited to the crop year to which
they applied even if payment was received in subsequent years.
Likewise, farm products held for speculation were considered for the
purposes of this study as sold at prevailing prices during the marketing
season of the year in which they were raised.
The gross income per plantation increased from $9,974 in 1934 to
$13,679 in 1937, an increase of approximately 37 percent for all areas
combined (table 20). Significant increases in gross income per
plantation were reported in all areas except the Black Belt (B) Area
which had a loss of 26 percent (fig. 7 and appendix table 17).
TolJle 20.-Gross Income From Cash Receipts per Plantation, by Source of Income,
1937 and 1934 I
Cash receipts per plantation
Bouroe of lnoome
11137
Amount
Total____________________________________________
$13,679
Percent
.Amount
Percent
$11,974
100.0
1----1----1--86. 5
8,342
83.6
~~:IL::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Feed __________ ------------·. ___ .. __ ._______________
Other crops _____ ... _____ .__________________________
~&~~
194
914
t~:t'?rr;~~~:~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: r~
I,
1
1934
100.0
78. 4
1. 4
6. 7
9.0
3. :I
1.3
7,437
189
716
1,123
230
279
74. 6
,:g
11.3
2. 3
. 2.8
For data by artlll8 see appendix table 17.
Crop sales accounted for approximately 85 percent of the gross cash
receipts per plantation for all areas studied for both crop years and
ranged from 75 to 90 percent in the different areas. The predominant
position of the cotton enterprise (sale of lint cotton and cottonseed)
in plantation income is shown by the fact that operators in only one
area, the Atlantic Coast Plain, reported that less than 50 percent of
the total cash receipts were from cotton (appendix table 17). Cash
receipts from this source ranged in all other areas from about 55 to 87
percent during the years surveyed.
Significant increases in the actual cash receipts per plantation
derived from the sale of lint cotton and cottonseed were reported in all
areas except the Black Belt (B) Area. The proportion of the total
gross cash income derived from the cotton enterprise, however,
increased only in the Upper Delta, Lower Delta, Interio.r Plain,
Mississippi Bluffs, and Red River Areas. Conversely, small decreases
occurred in the other four areas.
The cash income per plantation derived from feed sales was not
important in any area, while cash receipts from other crops pe'r
lJlgr zed by
Goos Ie
32 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
plantation appeared significant in only two of the areas studied, the
Atlantic Coast Plain and Black Belt (A) Areas. From the sale
principally of tobacco and peanuts these areas derived approximately
one-half and one-fifth, respectively, of their gross cash incomes per
plantation during both crop years.
Fig. 7 - GROSS INCOME FROM CASH RECEIPTS
PER PLANTATION, BY AREA
193 7 and 1934
Thousand dollars
0
5
10
15
20
25
All areas
Arkansas
River
Upper Dello
Red River
Mississippi
Bluffs
Atlantic
Coast Plain
Lower Della
lnlerior Plain
~ 1937
Block Belt
(A)
llll!l
1934
Biocli Belt
(8)
Soun:e: Appendix table 17.
WMIID
Benefit payments received under the AAA program ranked second
to crops as a source of gross income per plantation. They accounted
for 11 percent of the average gross income in 1934 as compared with 9
percent in 1937, although the average amount increased from $1,123
to $1,237. Benefits increased in the majority of areas. In several
areas, however, small decreases occurred which were probably due
primarily to nonparticipation of some operators in the 1937 program.
0191• 2P.d by
G oog1e
Pickers at Work.
D ,JIit ed lly
Goog Ie
D1gi zed by
Goog 1e
PLANTATION INCOME• 33
Cash sales of livestock products by the plantation operator ranked
third as a source of income. A significant upward trend in the sale
of livestock products since 1934 had occurred in the majority of areas.
Insofar as actual cash income per plantation waB concerned though,
this source still remained of minor importance in most areas. The
future possibilities for expansion of the livestock industry are considerable, however.
Other cash receipts were received chiefly from tenant transactions.
Of these the most important was interest on credit advances to tenants
for subsistence, seed, and fertilizer while a small amount was received
by the operator from commissions through resale of farm products.
Cash rent from land and financial returns for special work performed
by the operator or under his supervision constituted the smallest
source of cash return per plantation. Other cash receipts had declined
greatly since 1934, largely because of decreased rental of land by the
operator for cash to off-plantation families and the increaBe in crop
acres operated by wage laborers in a number of areas.
A comparison of the 25 percent of the plantations having the highest
gross cash income with the 25 percent having the lowest reveals wide
differences in the average income per plantation, per family, and per
crop acre in each area for both periods studied (appendix table 18).
The gross income per plantation for the highest one-fourth was more
than double the average income for all plantations in both 1937 and
1934, while the average gross cash income for all plantations was about
three and one-half times as large as the income for the lowest one-fourth
in both years (tables 21 and 20).
Taflle 21.-Gross Income for the One-Fourth of the Plantations in Each Area With the
Highest and lowest Gross Income per Plantation, 1937 and 1934 1
Item
Total plantations In each Income group _________________________ .
1937
1934
Percent
Increase
or decreue
113
Oro,,,, Income ror one-fourth or plantations with highest grOM in- !====:-==-'--"-~come
plantation:
Per per
plantation
_____ . _______ . __ . ___ . _____ . ___ . ___________ . ___ ._
$30,154
$21,322
Per family•-- ________________________________________________ _
1182
707
27
34
Per crop acre_._-------------- _____ .------------···-·--------Oross Income for one-fourth or plantations with lowest gross Income
perPer
plantatlon:
plantation ______________________________ . ______________ .. _
3,715
2,915
Per family•----------------------------- ____________________ .
548
395
21
16
Per crop acre_------------------------- ___ -----------------. -For data hy areas see appendix table 18.
• Excludes resident ramilles without crops.
t
Gross income per family for the highest one-fourth was almost 80
percent greater than the comparable gross inr.ome for the lowest onefourth in both years (table 21). On a crop-acre basis income was about
D 1111
edbyGoogle
34 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
60 to 70 percent higher in the upper than in the lower of these two
groups. Gross income per plantation increased more significantly
between the two years for plantations in the highest one-fourth than
in the lowest one-fourth, the average increases being 41 percent and
27 percent, respectively. Income per family, on the other hand,
increased at the same rate for both groups, 39 percent. Returns per
crop acre, while remaining much less in the lower than in the upper
group, increased relatively more in the lower income group-31 percent as compared with 26 percent for the upper income group.
CURRENT EXPENSES
The operators of plantations of the size covered by this study have
heavy current expenses during the production of the crop and for
maintenance of the property. Coincident with the expansion of crop
acreage and changes in labor practices, the operating costs also rose.
Current expenditures per plantation, exclusive of expenditures for
the erection of new buildings, fences, drainage work, and other capital
improvements, amounted to $6,006 in 1937 in comparison with $4,285
in 1934 or a 40 percent increase (table 22). Wide differences in
expenditures appeared among areas and in the same area from one
year to another {appendix table 19). Expenditures per plantation
had increased since 1934 in all areas except the Black Belt (B) Area
where the decrease was negligible.
Tal»le !!.-Current Expenses per Plantation, 1937 and 193-4 1
Item
11134
JU37
Total plantatloM..................................••••.•.....•......................
Me
Current expenses per plantation...............................................
S6, 006
$4.285
Labor...............................................................................
Regular wage lnhorers •..........................................................
Seasonal wage lahorers...........................................................
Cotton chopping............................................................
Cotton picking..............................................................
T•nant oresslonal...............................................................
Mlsc,,llnneotLs...................................................................
Other crop exl)('n,..~. ... . ............................................................
F,.. c1 and vewrfnary r= .......................................................
Seed, rertlllzer, and poison for pest control.......................................
Tractor expenaea.. ..............................................................
Ginning.........................................................................
Rent............................................................................
Repalr,t. .........•...•.•...•..... ....................................................
Real estaoo.. ...••••••••••••••••••••• •.•••••••••••.. .•.•.. •.••• •.•• •••.•••••..•. ••. . .
Jns,,rance. ....••.•....•...............•.....•...................................
T111es.. ..••••••.••.•.....••.•.••••..........•.•...............•..........•..•.•.
Interest............................................................................
M l=llaneous..... ... . . . . . . . ... . .•... .. . .. .. .. . . . . .• . . .... ... . ..... ... . . ..... ...•. ..
2, 166
1.319
631
226
85
6!i8
1.m1
120
917
364
107
2,468
107
'193
197
J.005
306
497
605
119
486
211
!ill
141
200
166
1,835
229
633
130
551
292
342
813
100
li07
122
M
' For data hy areas see apl)('ndlx table JV.
• Includes nonresident laborers.
For all areas combined, wages for labor constituted approximately
36 percent of the total expenditures per plantation in 1937 as
D1gi; zed by
Google
PLANTATION INCOME• 35
compared with about 31 percent in 1934. Every area studied, with
the exception of the two Black Belt areas, showed a significant increase in expenditures for labor. While regular wage laborer expenditures had increased since 1934 in the majority of the areas studied,
this type of expenditure had been reduced by more than 50 percent in
the Red River and Arkansas River Areas. Seasonal labor expenditures for all areas were between four and five times as large in 1937 as
in 1934 with the increases concentrated in the western areas. The
increases were due largely to expanded acreage in cotton and to high
cotton yields in 1937 as compared with 1934. Tenant occasional
labor was also used to a greater extent in 1937 than in 1934 in most
areas for the same reasons. Some plantation operators use tenant
occasional labor only, while others use this group together with offplantation labor for all cropping practices.
Other crop expenses accounted for approximately 41 percent of the
total expenditures per plantation for all areas in 1937 and a slightly
higher percent in 1934. Ginning, the largest of such expenses per
plantation in 1937, together with seed and fertilizer costs, account~d
for the major portion of other crop expenditures in both years. Improved (and hence more expensive) seed in 1937 as compared with
1934 and use of greater amounts of fertilizer were other factors in the
increased crop expenses.
Repairs to buildings, fences, and implements had also mounted since
1934 in most areas. Less than one-third as much was spent for this
item in the Interior Plain Area, however, in 1937 as in 1934. Insurance on plantation property had increased in most areas. Taxes per
plantation were slightly reduced for all areas combined, while major
reductions had occurred in the Red River Area.
Interest as here discussed applies only to money borrowed for plantation farming operations in the crop years 1937 and 1934. Between
the two years this item rose by 73 percent for all plantations studied.
Only two areas, the Black Belt (A) and Mississippi Bluffs Areas, had
reduced the interest cost during the period covered.
PLANTATION NET CASH INCOME
To obtain plantation net cash income, current expenses of both the
operator and tenants were subtracted from the total plantation gross
income. The items deducted included expenditures for feed, seed,
and fertilizer; interest on short-term loans; labor; current repairs to
plantation buildings, fences, and implements; insurance and taxes;
and other current cash expenditures. Costs chargeable to depreciation, improvements, and interest on long-term credit were not included.
The net cash income per plantation increased from $5,689 in 1934
to $7,673 in 1937 or 35 percent (table 23 and fig. 8). All areas showed
I)
JtliledtiyGoogle
36 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
Tcrl,le .13.-Net Cash Income per Plantation and per Crop Acre, by Area, 1937 and 1934
Net mah Income
TotalplaD·
tatlons
Per plantation
1937
All.,...............................
Atlantic Cout Plain......................
Black Belt (A)............................
Blaclt Belt (B)............................
Upper Delta..............................
Lower Delta..............................
Interior Plain.............................
Mls.slsslppl Bluffs.........................
Red RlvPr................................
Arkansas River...........................
:He
1934
S7,ffl
$6,689
f----111====1,====I=
6,689
4,4411
31
81
2,915
2,1131
918
16
2,00f
79
11, 7-lO
8,071
19
4, 703
3,663
3,941
3,478
17
8, 0:.)
77
6,2112
16
10,021
11,830
11
14,403
12,458
Per crop acre
1934
1937
$16
$14
17
18
II
8
16
16
10
11
11
8
4
:.I
13
10
18
14
16
14
Fio. 8 - NET CASH INCOME PER PLANTATION, BY AREA
1937 and 1934
Thousond dollars
0
5
10
15
Allareos
Arkansas
River
Upper Delta
Red River
Mississippi
Bluffs
Atlantic
Coast Plain
Lawer Delta
Interior Plain
~ 1937
Black Belt
IA)
1111934
Black Belt
(Bl
Source: Table 23.
WM JIii
D1qj" zed by
Goog1e
1'' a r m Secu rity .!dml11 istru llo11 (~ /,a/111 ).
Weighing Up.
o giltled by
Google
D1gi:zed by
Google
PLANTATION INCOME • 37
increases in cash earnings since 1934 with the exception of the Black
Belt (B) Area in which the net income per plantation was less than
one-half as large in 1937 as in 1934. Factors responsible for higher
net cash incomes were increased crop acreage planted to cotton and
exceptionally high yields, which more than compensated for the decline in prices between the two years.
Net cash income per crop acre increased in only four of the nine
areas. While it declined most markedly in the Black Belt (B) Area,
decreases also occurred in the Atlantic Coast Plain, Black Belt (A)
and Lower Delta Areas and no change occurred in the Interior Plain
Area. 1
1
For a financial summary of plantation operations see appendix table 20.
D 1111
edbyGoogle
orir"zeabvGoog1e
Chapter V
OPERATOR AND TENANT INCOME
THE COMPLEX internal organization and operation of plantations,
together with wide variations among individual units, present difficult
problems in measuring the net earnings of operator and tenant.
Data analyzed in this chapter are for cash income only, as the value of
products used for home consumption was not obtained on the 1937
schedules.•
OPERATOR'S CASH INCOME
As far as the individual operator is concerned, the success of the
year's plantation operation is determined primarily by whether or
not he himself receives a satisfactory net cash income after deduction
of current expenses from his gross income.
Gro11 Cash
lnco111e
The gross income of the operator for a given year is, to a large
extent, a reflection of acreage in crops and especially of the proportion
planted to cotton together with the average yield per acre and the
price level of the money crop. In addition, the type of labor or combinations of labor types used on the plantation affect the gross returns
as some prove more efficient than others. Another factor is the variations in the management ability of the operators. After sale of the
crop the operator retains his share of the cropper and share tenant
crop plus the amounts advanced for subsistence and production
expenses and the interest on such advances. The total proceeds from
acreage operated by wage labor are retained by the operator. In
acting as the marketing agent, the operator may exercise his prerogative by selling the product at once or holding part or all of the
1 In 1934 home-use production amounted to an average of $32 for wage laborers.
Sl05 for croppers, $145 for share tenants, and $158 for renters.
39
D1gi• zed by
Google
40 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
crop for speculative purposes. In either case he credits the tenants'
accounts for the product at prevailing market prices at the time of
settling in the autumn, making the deductions specified above.
The operator may rent acreage in addition to owned acreage or
he may rent out part or all of his acreage. In either case the proceeds received are considered as operator rather than plantation
income. Furthermore, the operator's income is augmented by
benefits which he receives for participation in the Agricultural Adjustment Administration program and by the sale of livestock products.
For all areas the average gross cash income of the operator increased
from $5,908 in 1934 to $8,328 in 1937 or approximately 41 percent
(table 24). Significant increases were found in most areas, and only
in the Black Belt (B) Area was the average gross income less in 1937
than in 1934 (appendix table 21). Approximately 83 percent of the
operator's income in 1937 was obtained from crop sales as compared
with 75 percent in 1934. Although their proportionate importance
diffored considerably from area to area, crop sales provided the
primary source of income in all areas.
Ta&le N.--Operator's Gross Cash Income From Cash Receipts per Plantation, by Source
of Income, 1937 and 1934 1
j
Groos c,ish Income per
plantation
Source of income
1937
TotaL. ___________________ ------------------------- _____ __ _________________
1934
$8,328
SS, 008
1----1---Crop ...1..,_ ... -------------------------------------------------·-·······- __ ----··
AA A paymen~-- .... _·--···· .. ---·-···---··-·····-··· ·-·-· ··--· ..... _··-··-··..
~tr,~;t~!l;~1u~t.~ _"_":1ea_. ::: : : : : : :::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::: :::::::::
6,882
833
g~
4,420
979
~
1 For dnta hy area.,;; i-:PO npJM.1ndh tRhlf'I 21.
• Casb rent, interest, commissions, and miscellaneous.
Next to crop sales, payments for participation in the AAA program
contributed the largest income in 1937 in all areas except the Black
Belt (A) Area in which income from the sale of livestock products
was more important. Although income derived from the sale of
livestock products was not significant in most areas in either year
studied, this source is gradually increasing in importance. Income
from other sources was not large in either year and was even le.ss
important in 1937 than in 1934. Reductions were due especially to
d<'crcascd income from land rental, lower interest rates, and a slight
decline in commissions.
Current Expenses
Significant increases in the operator's current plantation expenditures for the crop year 1937 over 1934 were found in the majority
D1gi: led by
Google
OPERATOR AND TENANT INCOME• 41
of the areas studied (table 25 and fig. 9), although only a slight
increase was noted in the Black Belt (B) Area and a slight reduction
in the Interior Plain Area. Current expenses per plantation in 1937
ranged from $1,889 in the Interior Plain Area to $9,681 in the Red
River Area.
Tal»le 25.-0perotor's Current Expenses per Plantation, by Area, 1937 and 193-4
I Total plan-
Area
Current expenses per
planta.tion
ta.tions
1937
AlJareas ____________________________________________________ _
11134
246
$4,738
$3,380
~l~
::::::: ::::::::::::::
:: ::::::::::::::::::::_
Upperl:lt
Delta~~~::::::::::
.. _... ______________________
.. ________________________
31
31
16
Lower Delta.. ______ -----------------------------------------------Interior Plain .... _____ -- ---- -____ . _-- __ --- - ----- - ------ -- --- _---- __
!.HssLssip pi Bluffs ___ . _-- ----- ________ --------------- -- -- --·--- ___ _
Red River .... -----. - . ------------------------------------------- -Arkansas River ____ ------------------------------------------------
19
17
27
16
11
2,931
2,049
1,915
7,293
2,145
1,889
3,472
9,681
9,382
2,087
1,786
1,894
4,862
1,154
Atlantic Co&!t Plain. __ ._------------------------------------------
711
1,968
2,204
· 7,743
6,382
Net Cash Income
The net cash income of the operator was obtained by deducting
current expenses from gross cash income. The average net cash
income of all operators surveyed rose from $2,528 in 1934 to $3,590
in 1937 or 42 percent (table 26 and fig. 9). Only the Atlantic Coast
Plain and the two Black Belt Areas failed to show increases. A
severe decline occurred in the Black Belt (B) Area in which the average was reduced from $1,113 to $215.
·
Tal»le 26.-0perator's Net Cash Income per Plantation, by Area, 1937 and 193-4
Totalpla.ntations
Net cash Income per
plantation
1937
11134
areas_._ ... _--·-------------------------------------------
246
$3,600
$2. 528
Atlantic Coast Plain ..... ________ ---------------------------- _____ _
31
31
16
79
19
17
27
16
11
1,006
1,378
215
6,616
2,422
1,770
4,124
4,598
7,826
2,170
1,433
1, 113
3,278
1,816
I, 558
2,420
2,796
6,409
All
tl::;t
l:l~ ltl::: :: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Upper Delta. ____ .. _.. -- -- ______ -------- -- ------------------------ __
Lower Delta ___ ._ ..... _. __________________________________________ _
Interior Plain __ . __ .. _. _____ ------------------ _____________________ _
Mississippi Bluffs._ ... _---- __ -- -------- -- ---- -- __ -- -- -- ___________ _
Red River._. ____ ... ___ ------------ _______________________________ _
Ark&.lll!M River __ .... ________________________ . _______ ... _. _______ ._
Net Cash Gain or Loss
Within the period under study less than 10 percent of the total
operators reported actual losses in their plantation enterprises (appendix table 22). The majority of those with losses reported net cash
D Qllt ed lly
Goog Ie
42 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
Fig. 9 - CASH INCOME* PER OPERATOR, BY AREA
1937 and 1934
TllcMGlcl dollars
0
All areas
1937
1934
Arkansas
River
1937
1934
Red River
1937
1934
Upper Delto
1937
1934
Mi11issippl
Bluff•
1937
1934
Atlantic
Cooat Ploln
1937
1934
Lower Oelto
1937
1934
Interior Ploln
1937
1934
4
II
B
111111111!1
1111111iB!11
Block Belt
(A)
Block Belt
. (8)
Net colh
income
~:::..
1937
. 1934
1937
1934
• Total length of bar equals groa1 colh
inc:ollle.
Source: Appendia table 23.
losses of less than $500. In fact for this group with small losses the
average loss in 1937 was $144 and in 1934, $212. The seven operators
with heavy losses in 1934 averaged a net loss of $869. The corresponding losses for eight operators in 1937 averaged $1,636.
For the operators who reported actual net cash returns from their
plantation enterprises the average earnings were $4,331 in 1937 as
compared with $2,996 in 1934, a gain of 45 percent. The increase
in the average net cash gain per operator for the crop year 1937 is
indicated by the fact that 27 percent received $5,000 or more and
averaged $10,268 as compared with 15 percent and an average income
of $9,362 for 1934. Moreover, only 23 percent of the operators
reported a net gain of less than $1,000 in 1937 as contrasted with 29
o ;i111•ed by
Google
"2-:_·: ··
·:+-;'.~
---
<"·'"· .
J~· ••
§"•·-·
I"',.
r.~
:• ·;.:
J,'a r ,n li et:u ri t y ..4. <lm i ni1rtratiu" ( La 11 11c 1.
Loading for th e Gin .
OgitizedbyGoogle
Digitized by
Google
OPERATOR AND TENANT INCOME • 43
percent in 1934. Thus, data on operator's net gain or loss substantiate
the conclusion that the economic situation of plantations in the Southeast was far better in the good cotton year 1937 than it ha.d been in
1934. 2
The operator's net cash income, however, represents the return for
his supervisory labor and interest on his invested capital. Deducting
a 6 percent return on invested capital, operator labor income was
$645 in 1934 as compared with $1,340 in 1937. In both years the
labor income was much below the earnings the average operator would
have been expected to receive from another occupation.
TENANT'S CASH INCOME
The analysis of tenant income has been limited to sharecroppers
a.nd she.re tenants. Renters (ca.sh and standing) were relatively few
in number on the plantations surveyed and were a more independent
group, receiving little or no supervision and exercising much the same
prerogatives a.s owner-operators. Croppers and she.re tenants on
plantations, on the other hand, are usually supervised a.s closely in
their work a.s a.re wage laborers; in addition, they are dependent on
the operator for production expenses and subsistence.
Go. Calla lnco••
Gross cash income includes the value of the tenant's share of the
crops produced, payments received from the AAA, and wages for
labor. In the present study only earnings from plantation labor were
reported.
The average gross cash income per tenant family for all areas
increased from $331 in 1934 to $385 in 1937 or approximately 16 percent (table 27). Moreover, tenants ip. all areas ha.d increases in
average gross earnings except those in the Interior Plain Area where
a slight decline occurred and in the Black Belt (B) Area where a
decline of about 20 percent was reported. The variations in average
gross income reflected principally changes in the cotton enterprise,
for other sources produced relatively little income except in the
Atlantic Coast Plain Area where about 50 percent of the average
tenant income from crop sales wa.s from tobacco. Variations in
income from the cotton enterprise were caused by changes in acreage
and production of cotton and in payments received for participation
in the AAA program.
The returns from plantation occasional labor, in which the tenant
worked on the plantation but not on his own acreage, averaged about
$25 per year. This source of income was of importance only in the
1
For a summary of the operator's financial situation see appendix table 23.
D1gi• zed by
210918°-40--5
Google
44 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
Red River Area where tenants reported $118 in earnings, on the
average, for 1937.
Current Expensa
The major item in current expenses was advances for subsistence
plus interest which averaged over $100 in both 1934 and 1937. The
amount declined slightly for all areas combined between the two
years, although the majority of individual areas had slight increases
(table 27). The principal crop expenses incurred by the tenant were
for ginning, fertilizer, labor for cotton picking and other cropping
practices, supervision, and interest. As a result of increases in acreage, volume of production, and the cost of individual items, crop
expenses rose slightly in most of the areas studied. For all areas
combined they increased from $68 to $85 per tenant.
Tal,/e 27.-Net Income• per Tenant Family, 2 by Area, 1937 and 1934
Ana
.AD area8:
Total
faml•
lies
re~t
3,272
Gross cash lnoome
Total
Crop
sales
$331
3,0().1
$385
331
1937•.....•.•.•••..•••••.
193-4 - - -....•. ·••··••• ••..
164
145
635
517
1570
1937 .....•....••.••.•••••
1934 ........•••••••••••.•
166
160
338
312
1937 ....•.•••••••••••••..
1934. ··•••••••••••• ••....
87
62
386
133
1937....•••••••••••••.. _.
1934 ....•.•••••••••••.. _
1,578
1,'63
406
366
249
18'
215
165
DI
161
108
113
362
385
1937 ..•...••• ••••••••••••
1934 .••••••••••••••••••••
386
SM
373
1937....•••••••••••••••••
1934 ... ·····•••••••••••••
234
1037 ..........•••••.....
1934 ..••.•...••••......••
1937.•••••••••••••.
1934 ...••••••••.••.
Atlantlo Coast PIIIID:
Black Belt (A):
Black Belt (B):
Upper Delta:
Lower l>elta:
1937 ......•••••••••••..• _
1934 .....••••••••••••••..
Mississippi Bluffs:
Red River:
S27
S27
185
Ne&
Income
$300
$104
112
$11111
151
08
136
116
333
449
14
11
111
M
113
88
U!O
1146
140
228
rt
fl()
111
87
138
1111
87
147
fil
I08
21
II
872
UI
18
1&
lOII
121
190
163
284
157
129Ej
It
24
487
211
21
36
II
"308
14
II
68
283
= =-------- ---- -I
II 211()
218
70
429
fill5
2te
2W
11
M
108
81
a
8
1
1
S8
31
78
79
111
50
HI
272
fll
rt
15
47
151
411
91
161
218
176
SOIi
336
21H
322
273
42
10
16
98
Ill
107
112
175
108
200
451
271
2112
:M4
41
II
118
18
M
211
82
198
1111
314
123
:H2
322
315
311
263
204
51
10
56
20
30
32
116
182
136
281
231
Interior Plain:
1937........••••••••••••.
1034 .......•.•••••••.••..
I
Bob•
Cash
Crop
slst•
after
ex•
ence
AAA
S<'t·
penses• ad·
pay• Labor•
1 Ulng
vances
ments
Arkansas River:
823•
233
8
1111
282
39(1
a Excludes home•use production.
• Cropper and share tenant families only.
• Average earnings per tenant family for plantation oocaslonal labor.
• Seed, feed, fertilizer, labor, etc.
• Subsistence advances plus lntett!lt. This total will not check with data In table 18 as average emrent
exJ)"nses for RUbs!stenco are based on all tenant families, including those not receiving subsistence advances.
• Tobacco and peanuts accounted for 6 percent of the total.
' Tobacco and peanuts accounted for 5 percent of the total.
• Tobacco accounterl for 55 percent of the total.
• Tobacco accounted for ,1 percent of the total.
10 Tobacco and peanuts accounted for 20 percent of the total.
11 Tobacco and peanuts accounted for 21 percent of the total.
o
,111ed oy
Google
OPERATOR AND TENANT INCOME • 45
NetCmhlncoae
The net cash income per tenant family after settling with the landlord rose from $151 in 1934 to $196 in 1937 or about 30 percent (table
27). Although wide differences in income occurred from area to area,
significant increases since 1934 were general. The average for the
Black Belt (B) Area, however, declined from $147 to $67. The highest
cash income per family was reported in the Atlantic Coast Plain ~
and was due to the dependence on tobacco. Among the areas d&pendent on cotton the highest average net cash income in 1937 was
$314 in the Red River Area. Of this total $118 was from wages for
plantation labor.
The average net ca.sh income after settling of croppers on plantations
which had this type of tenant exclusively rose from $137 in 1934 to
$216 in 1937 (table 28). This resulted from increases in cotton acreage and yield in addition to an increase in income from working at
occasional plantation labor. In both years income per cropper family
was considerably higher in the Atlantic Coast Plain Area than in other
areas because of high cash returns from tobacco in addition to cotton.
The croppers in the Red River Area had experienced the greatest
actual increase since 1934, partly because of definitely higher earnings
in 1937 from plantation occasional labor.
Tal,fe n.-Net Cash Income
I
per Cropper Family,1 by Area, 1937 and 1934
Net cash Income per
cropper family
TotalfamWeanponlnc
11114
11137
AD-··.......................................
Atlantfe Cout
~=
Plain...................................
:~ tlt ~~L::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
g:1:::::::::::-.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Interior Plain..........................................
Mississippi Blotl'II..... ••••••• ••••...•.•.••••••• ••••••••
Red River.............................................
Arkanals River........................................
1
11137
11114
t, 281
ml>
$187
-------1-----1--127
123
362
$216
1,
411()
1
:~
m
44
1110
218
113
1211
211
1n
610
Di
IIO
164
1113
823
231
38
36
IIO
164
164
43
162
102
116
17
JIM
114
123
w
Alter settling with the landlord. Excludl'S subsistence advances and home-me produetloll.
on plantat.lons operated by croppers only.
1 Baaed
In comparison with croppers, share tenants on plantations operated
exclusively by this type of labor had lower net cash incomes in both
years studied. They averaged only $103 in 1934 and $187 in 1937.1
Net Ccuh lncorM by CoUon Acreage
Variations in tenant net cash income are directly related to crop
acres operated, especially to the proportion of the acreage planted to
• Data on file in the Division of Re8earch, Work Projects Administration,
Washington, D. C.
0
12edhyGoogl
46 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
the major cash crop----cotton.' Croppers and shr 3 tenants having
from 50 to 70 percent of their total crop acres in cott, -1 in 1937 received
the highest median net cash income, $309 as comp: red with $220 for
all tenants (appendix table 24). Relatively little d" ference was found
in the median cash income of tenants having 30 k m percent or over
70 percent of their crop acreage in cotton and the nedian income for
all tenants in 1937. Tenants with less than 30 p, .. ~ent of their total
crop acres in cotton had the lowest median ca~-· income in 1937,
whereas tenants having less than 30 percent of ~ 'ieir crop acres in
cotton in 1934 received the same median inc---.ne as those tenants
having 30 to 70 percent of their acreage in cot:.On. The tenants having
7Q percent or more of their crop acres plantei to cotton in that year
received the highest median cash income whic'J. was only slightly above
the average for all tenants in 1937. Thus, tb, variations in net cash
income on the basis of proportion of crop acr~agt, in cotton were found
to be much greater in 1937 than in 1934.
Net Income
After deducting expenses for actual crop produ< ,ion, the net income
of croppers and share tenants combined, excl 1sive ,>f home-use production, rose from $263 in 1934 to $300 in 1937 (tab},, 27). Of these totals,
$112 was for subsistence advances and $151 for uet cash income after
settling in 1934 and $104 was for subsistence advances and $196 for
net cash income in 1937. li an estimated $100 for production for
home use is added to crop income and subsistenc~, the total net income
of croppers and share tenants combined is f01 nd t,0 have averaged only
about $400 even in the good cotton year of 1J37. On the basis of
such low incomes it is clearly impossible for the average tenant to
raise his level of living above mere subsistence or to accumulate
resources with which to improve his tenure status. Moreover, because
of his precarious economic position, he rea.d•ly falls a victim to any
change in agricultural practices. The importance of this fact has been
clearly demonstrated by the large-scale relief needs in rural areas of
the South during the past few years.
1
• In the Atlantic Coast Plain Area tobacco wat: the major cash crop.
table 27.
Digi• led by
Google
See
...~. .;. .' ·.: -... -
•
Ruot Cotton l'lckn· l'omp1111y. Jfrm11lli•. 1',•1111.
Mechanical Cotton Picker at Work.
oa,1,,s-JbvGoogle
Dl11i1,zedbyGoogle
Chapter VI
RELIEF NEEDS IN THE SOUTH
0NLY THROUGH an understanding of the factors which make fqr
recurring periods of prosperity and depression for the farmer can a
sound program for attacking human dependency in the South be
developed. The first five chapters of this report are limited to a
single segment of Southern agriculture, that associated with the
larger, more efficient production units in cotton counties of the Southeast. The facts as to this segment indicate that its economy has
partially recovered from the extreme disorganization of the early
1930's. Operators are earning a return on their capital and a small
additional labor income. Tenants' incomes, while extremely low,
suffice to keep them from going on relief. However, fewer tenant
families per 1,000 crop acres are participating in this economy than
formerly.
Interspersed with the plantations are thousands of smaller units
occupying less fertile land and producing smaller yields per acre.
The income picture for the operators of these units is less favorable
than for plantation operators except where they depend to a larger
degree on home-use production.
On both the large and the small units the reduced demand for cotton
and the increased efficiency in production have displaced workers to
the extent that there are now fewer people participating in the profits
from the cotton economy than there were in the l 920's. Still another
consideration is the fact that the oncoming generation of new workers
is far larger than can be absorbed in such a situation. At the same
time these workers who cannot find places in agriculture do not have
adequate opportunities for employment in other industries.
47
D1g1 zed by
Google
48 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
POPULATION TRENDS
More than one-half (53 percent on January 1, 1935) of the farm
population of the Nation is in the South, 1 and the basic causes of
Southern relief problems are to be found in the maladjustments of
this farm population in relation to agricultural opportunity and in its
pressure toward the towns and villages where it cannot be absorbed.
Southern farm families furnish over one-fourth of the total increase
in the Nation's labor supply, or more than 200,000 annually during
the 1930's.
Normally, there is a flow of maturing laborers from farm to nonfarm areas and from the South to other sections, but during the early
years of the depression the net movement from farms was cut to onefifth of its usual volume. 2 The estimates of the Bureau of Agricultural
Economics indicate a net shift from farms in the South to villages,
towns, and cities of more than 105,000 persons per year from 1930
through 1934 or almost as much as the national total of approximately
120,000. Even so, this net shift of some 525,000 from Southern fanns
in the years 1930-1934 did not drain off the natural increase of 736,000
in the Southern farm population. This increase was largely concentrated in the Appalachian-Ozark and other part-time farming areas,
while the farm population of the cotton areas remained about constant.
There were important shifts within this population, however. The
fact that the persons of working age were banking up in the population is indicated by the increase in unpaid family laborers shown by
the 1935 Census.
CHANGE IN NUMBER OF FARM OPERATORS, 1930 TO 1935
Southern agriculture in the early depression years, especially in
1931 and 1932, was so disorganized that many farmers were forced out
of agriculture entirely, while many tenants were forced into the labor
class and many farm laborers were displaced. The years 1933 and
1934 were years of partial recovery so that comparison of census figures for 1930 and 1935 shows the results of the slump and partial
recovery.
For the purposes of this discussion the mountain areas and border
South are not included because, while the farm problems of these sections are serious, they are of a special character pertaining to subsistence and part-time farming. Hence the statistics on changes in
1 Alabama,
Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. See Bureau of the Census, United Stale,
Cenaua of AgricuUure: 19S6, Vol. III, U. S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C., 1937, p. 144.
1 Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Farm Population Estimates, January 1,
19S9, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., June 22, 1939, p. 7.
Dlgi::zed by
Google
RELIEF NEEDS IN THE SOUTH •
49
numbers and types of farms are confined primarily to the cotton regions
of the Old South. In these regions the total number of farms reported by the census remained almost constant from 1930 to 1935
(table 29), slight increases in the Southeast being offset by slight decreases in the Mississippi Delta and central Texas.• The Southeastern
increases were probably not cotton farms as many were in suburban
areas around cities and in the Upper Piedmont textile area.
Tal,le 29.--<hanges in Farm Population and in Farm Operators in Southern Regions,
1930 to 1935
Item
April I,
1anuary 1,
1930
1935
1
Change
J'J.BJI POPUL.t.TION
Total ____ - --- --- -- --- -- ----- -- --- -- --------- ---------- -Cotton regions•------ _________________ -----·-·······-····-··-·
Noncotton regions ______________ . _______ ---·--·--·---·--·----I'J.BJI OPBII.J.TOB8
TotaJ ______________________ . __________ ----··---·····---Cotton regions•-------------------------______________________
Noncotton regions____________________________________________
16, 191, 000
16, 927, 000
+736,000
10,333,000
6,858,000
10,302,000
6,625,000
-31, 000
+767, 000
3,224,000
3,422,000
+UIS, 000
!, 158,000
1,346,000
+187, 000
-·---1-----t----
-- --1-----1-----2,066,000
2,077,000
+11. 000
• Includes Alabama, Arkansas, D~laware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,
North Carolina Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennes.S8<', TexBS, Virginia, and West Virginia.
'EBSt Central Oklahoma, EBStern Old South, Mississippi Delta, and Western Old South Regions and
adJBCCnt 91lbreglons BS rtellmlted by Mangus, A. R., Rural Rt/lion, of the United Statu, Division of Research,
Work Projects Administration, Washington, D. C., 11140.
Bonrce: Bureau of the CeD911S, United State, C'emm of Agrlculture: 1~, Vols. I and II, U. 8. Depertment of Commerce, Washington, D. C., 1006.
A considerable shifting of status occurred within the farm population. Owners and managers increased by 54,000 (table 30). This
was partly the result of an increase in subsistence and part-time
farmers. Tenants (other than croppers) increased by 20,000. This
was in a. large measure an increase in displaced tenants, i. e., those
still living on farms and operating as much as 3 acres in a desultory
way but without a cotton crop or the usual landlord-tenant agreement.
Croppers showed a decrease of 63,000 or nearly 10 percent.
Tal,le 30.-Changes in Farm Operators in Southern Cotton Regions,1 by Tenure, 1930
to 1935
Item
Total
Owners and
managrrs
TenBDts
Croppers
1930. _. _-- _------------------------------ --------------11135 ___ ----- ------------------------------------------ --
2,066.000
695,000
71.5. 000
656,000
2,077,000
749,000
T.l5, 000
593. 000
l====l,====l=====I====
Change __ -----------------·---------------------+u, 000
+54, 000
+20, 000
-63. 000
• East Central Oklahoma, Eastern Old South, Mississippi Delta. and Western Old South Regions and
adJseent subregions as delimited by Mangus, A. R., Rural Region, of the United State,, Division of Research,
Work Projects Administration, Washington, D. C., !!HO.
Source: Bureau of the Census, United State, Cemua of Agriculture: 1/JM, Vol. I, U. S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D. C., 1936.
1 Turner, H. A., A Graphic Summary of Farm Tenure, Miscellaneous Publication
No. 261, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., 1936, pp. 24-25.
D1gi' led by
Goog1e
50 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
The registration in the Unemployment Census of November 1937
was far under the total number of unemployed. 4 Nevertheless, one
fact about the South was clear: namely, that unemployment 5 among
farm operators and farm laborers was more frequent in the South than
in other sections. It was even more frequent than in the Great Plains
drought section. Of the Southern registrants reporting occupations
6 percent were farm operators as compared with 3 percent in the
whole country. Twenty-four percent were farm laborers as against
twelve percent for the whole country. 8
All of these data point to the existence of a huge needy farm population. It is difficult to express this need in numbers because its volume
varies from year to year and even from month to month with the fortunes of agriculture and because it differs under varying definitions
of need. It seems likely, however, that in 1938 there were at least
1,200,000 displaced farmers, excess youth remaining on farms, and
displaced farm laborers in the South who were in need of public
assistance.
In addition to these groups which have a farm background but are
more or less detached from productive agriculture, the operation of
the plantation system creates a situation in which many of the tenants
and small owners desperately need a cash income during the winter
months. Ordinarily planters furnish their tenants with subsistence
advances for 7 or 8 months. Since these advances are secured by the
growing crop, they usually do not start until the crop is planted and
stop when it is sold. Moreover, the amount of credit is largely
dependent upon the expected value of the tenant's share of the crop.
A study of 646 plantations in 1934 showed the average duration of
tenant advances to be 6.9 months and the average monthly advance
to be $12.50. 7 Thus the tenant is usually on his own resources for 5
winter months-October, November, December, January, and
February. He is virtually unemployed in agriculture during this
time, just as workers in seasonal industries have periods of unemployment. Before the depression farmers who did not clear enough on
their crops to get through the winter depended on odd jobs, clearing
land, hauling wood, etc., to pick up the necessary cash. During the
4 Census of Partial Employment, Unemployment, and Occupations: 1937,
Final Report on Total and Partial Unemployment, Vol. IV, Washington, D. C.,
1938, pp. 6-8.
1 Including persons totally and partially unemployed and engaged in emergency
work in 16 Southern States.
• Census of Partial Employment, Unemployment, and Occupations: 1937, op.
cit., Vol. I, pp. 74, 77, and 80.
7 Woofter, T. J., Jr. and Others, Landlord and Tenant on the Cotton Plantation,
Research Monograph V, Division of Social Research, Worka Progress Adminfa..
tration, Washington, D. C., 1936, p. 59.
Digi• led by
Google
RELIEF NEEDS IN THE SOUTH • 51
depression, for various reasons, these opportunities for winter employment have virtually disappeared. Lumbering is at a low ebb;
planters do not do as much clearing of new land as formerly; and
public construction, financed by counties and towns, is far below
predepression levels.
In order to understand this winter need it is necessary to examine
the disposal of the cropper's income. According to the 1934 study,
the cropper's income averaged (with 12-cent cotton) $312, of which
$105 was in home-use production, most of which was used during
the summer and fall. 8 An average of $21 was earned by work away
from his own farm. His cash crop brought $186, but he had drawn
$85 in subsistence advances during the crop season so he received only
$101 in cash at the end of the year. This was about $20 a month to
tide him over the 5 months during which no advances were available
and to buy his annual supply of clothing and pay off such items as
doctors' bills.
It must be remembered that this is an average figure and that
thousands below the average had less than this amount on which to
get through the winter. In fact, on 14 percent of the plantations,
even with 12-cent cotton, cropper and other share tenant net incomes
were less than $200, including home-use products. 0 In 1938, with
8-cent cotton, the proportion of such tenants having less than an adequate amount of money to carry them through the winter was at
least 35 percent of the total or from 350,000 to 400,000.
EXTENT OF FEDERAL AID
On a per capita basis the South has not received as much Federal
aid as most other sections, partly because it is dominantly rural
and rural groups have been less articulate than urban groups about
their needs, partly because living standards are so low that standards
of acceptance for relief have been lower than in other sections, and
partly because, for the same reason, amounts of relief granted per
case have been relatively lower than in other sections.
The accompanying map shows per capita Federal aid under the
combined FERA, CWA, Resettlement-Farm Security, and WPA
programs cumulated from January 1933 through March 1938 (fig.
10). High per capita expenditures in the Plains States, where drought
conditions have been serious in recent years, are in contrast to very
low per capita expenditures in the South. In the cotton States per
capita expenditures have ranged from $24 to $59; in the Plains
States, from $49 to $116 (table 31).
1 Ibid., p. 87.
• Ibid., p. 222.
D1q1· zed by
Goog Ie
52 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
Flo. 10- FEDERAL AID PER CAPITA*
~ 20-34
~ 35-49
fnclu des:
IB8
111
50-64
65- 7 9
■ 80 or more
WPA labor
Resell lemenl - Farm Security
grants and loans
FERA- CWA
• Soseel on 1930 population.
Tal,le 3f.-Federal Aid per Capita,1 January 1933-March 1938
(12 Southern and 7 drought States)
Stale
Total
WPA lahor
ResettlementFarm Security
grants and
loans
$385,Ml,SM
$83, 670, 876
$648,2211,087
$85.118
30,210,648
25,li00,434
28,852,398
1111,342, m
50,801,1178
63, 611, 1176
611,852.646
61,065,028
37,357,982
38.81
46. 02
63,580, 11911
42,707,205
45, 6110. 90II
103,702,641
33,6Ul,019
FF.RACWA
Aldft:
cap ta
!OUTHJ:BN !IT.I.TU
Total.....•.............. SI, 117, 3&1, 317
Alabama ......................
ArkllllSBS--····················
Florida. ............••..•...••.
Oeorgla•......•...•. -·-········
Louisiana .......... ··-·-· •....
M!Mw~pl. ............•. -....
North arollna ...............
Oklahoma..............•......
South Carolina................
Tenneaee .....................
Texas.-········· ..............
Virginia .......................
98,887,758
83, 4110, 2M
85, 9411, 3)9
100,068,822
104, 4S7, 422
66,614,880
76,081,104
115,075,633
tlll,924,1179
76,501,648
185,321,339
611,011,388
37, 1147, 833
21,lllll, 106
23, 4118,022
49,3114,673
21,873,380
27,736,237
62,491,821
23,000,170
7,314,483
7,387,846
3,481,837
7, 150, 1142
6,444,761
7, :11115, 792
4,354,100
12,100,061
5,344, 3114
2,104,405
19,127,077
2,495, 179
471, 126, tl93
180, 408, 073
77,6'6,1164
213,071, 6M
73. 25
405,748
Cl, «llll,1176
21,022,423
28,429,319
lll, 703, 234
23,782,182
6,444,191
7, 1113, 794
12, 006, 1139
6,,14,300
12,219,321
17, 3611, 'JEl
lll, 176, 413
3,276,930
41,742,837
85. 211
152.41
100. 80
49.0S
113. 78
115. 92
33,085,234
,1, 228,982
158.54
34. 41
49.70
33.14
23. 88
48. 03
40. 22
28.118
31.82
21.37
DROUGHT 8TATB8
Total .. ---------------Colorado ......................
Kamas ........................
Montana ......................
Nebraska. .... _.... _···-···· .. _
North Dakota. ................
South Dakota .................
Wyomln,: .....................
1
88,342,379
98,587,383
M, 192,298
67, 6113, 631
113,848,193
80,314,871
18,247,038
:IQ,
44.9611.~
27,756,576
:16,1144,891
25, 785, tl92
3&,356,278
9,526,917
80.811
BIL!ed on 1930 population.
Relief loads have varied considerably in different sections of the
South. The proportion of families on relief in the Appalachian
counties has remained high throughout the depression. In the
cotton counties relief loads were heavy in 1933 and 1934 and dropped
rapidly in 1935, 1936, and early 1937 to mount again in late 1937
D git,zed by
Goos le
RELIEF NEEDS IN THE SOUTH • 53
and 1938. According to standards existing in other sections of the
country much need still existed in 1935, 1936, and 1937, but owing to
restrictions on quotas, lack of funds, and the limitation of State funds
for general relief not all of this need was met. The expansion of
programs in 1938 represented an effort both to meet previous need
and to care for the increase in number of needy families as a result of
the economic recession of that year.
In November 1936 the combined Works Progress Administration,
Resettlement Administration, and general relief loads were 966,000
or more than 311,000 under the November 1933 level (table 32). By
November 1937 (a low point) there was a further drop to 730J000 in
the combined load. From November 1937 to November 1938 the
expansion was rapid. WPA increased its employment to 873,000 or
over 140 percent. General relief rose slightly and the Farm Security
Administration, replacing the Resettlement Administration, decreased
its loan and grant load from 250,000 to 193,000. The combined
total again amounted to well over a million cases and approximated
the November 1933 general relief load. About 175,000 of the WPA
increase was due to the change of policy made in August 1938 to
give between-season employment to needy farmers.
Tcr&le 32.-Households Receivin9 Public Assistance I in the Sauth,1 November 1933November 1938
Month and year
November 1933 ..• _____ .. ____________________________________ .
May 1934 ___ .. _______________ --------------------------------Novemher 1934 .• ________________________ . ___________________ _
May 1915 ____________________________________________________ _
November 19311 ______________________________ . ---------------M BY 1936 ....... ----. _---- ------ ------- ----. ---- _.. -- . _.. --- _.
No,ember 1936 .• ______ . _____ . ______ • --- ___________ . _________ _
May 1937. ______ . ______________ • ____________ -----------------November 1937 ______________ • _________ • ---------------------Ma)· 1938 .... _.. __ ·--. -------------------------- _____________ _
November 1938 _____________________ --------------------------
General relief
l,Z76,838
1,211.879
1,307,110
1,179,142
734, 9118
2Z7, 755
177,366
170,656
117,628
148,324
136,001
WPA
ResettlementFarm Security
grants and 108118
656,403
557,001
593,246
481,516
361,574
616,632
87:1,607
195,306
252, 61U
250,471
3>4, 177
19:1,566
' Excluding Social Security clesses, the Civilian Conaervatlon Corps, and the National Youth Admln·
lstratlon.
• Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kcntuclty, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennossee, Texas, Virginia, and West Vlrglnla.
Among the cases aided in the South in November 1938, it is estimated that 600,000 included employable workers with fa.rm backgrounds. The rate at which WPA applications were increasing in
December and January is evidence of the great volume of need and
there appears to be no immediate probability of its reduction. In
November 1938 in addition to the agricultural workers employed by
WPA there were approximately 400,000 persons with fa.rm backgrounds eligible and certified for employment who could not be given
employment under the existing quotas, and the number was being
steadily increased by applications to public welfare offices.
D1gi zed by
Goog1e
54 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
If all families earning less than $312 per year in cash are considered
eligible for public assistance, nearly a million and a half families
with rural backgrounds may be applicants. If a stricter criterion is
used and only those detached from agriculture and earning less than
about $200 are included, somewhere in the neighborhood of a million
farm families may be expected to apply if unemployed youth, many
of whom are secondary workers in the household, are included as
eligible. But whatever criterion is used, the number of needy is
stupendous and offers convincing proof of the inadequacy of present
programs to cope completely with the widespread destitution in the
rural ~uth.
I)
iJll1•ed by
Google
Chapter VII
LIVING CONDITIONS
PRECEDING CHAPTERS have shown that the Southern cotton
planter was in a far better position economically in 1937 than 3
years previously. His tenants likewise had experienced some improvement as reflected in net cash income, but they still were UDable
to provide living conditions for themselves and their families which
would meet minimum requirements for the so-called American
standard of living. 1n addition, relief loads were large, but provisions
for public assistance were still inadequate to care for added thousands
upon thousands of needy rural families in the South. Conditions
described in this chapter apply not only to the less secure among the
plantation families but also to the great numbers of other rural families
in the South whose existence is marked by poverty and deprivation.
The problems a.re not new, but additional data on diet, housing,
health, education, and plane of living as they become available
serve to throw the situation into ever sharper relief.
DIET
Inadequate nutrition constitutes a basic problem in the South.
The meager diets generally found among low-income farm families in
this section result not only from lack of money with which to purchase
a variety of foodstuffs but also from ignorance and from food habits
of long standing. Gardens a.re primarily seasonal in character and
poorly tended, while canning and storing of food a.re usually at a
minimum among the group which most needs these types of provision
for winter diet. Lack of supplies, canning equipment, and refrigeration are frequently major obstacles to food preservation.
While the traditional corn meal, fat pork, and molasses of the
Cotton Belt are now generally supplemented by refined wheat flour
55
D1gi• zed by
Google
56 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
and sugar,1 such changes have actually decreased the nutritional
value of the basic diet. Unless they raise the products themselves,
the poorer farm families are unable to supplement this diet with the
needed quantities of milk, eggs, vegetables, fruits, and lean meat.
Hence the adequacy of the diet is directly dependent upon production
for home use. 1
Persons who are familiar with the large and carefully tended gardens
of other agricultural sections often do not realize that it is not simply
inertia which prevents the sharecropper or farm laborer from raising
much of his own food. He needs land and seed; he needs encouragement and education to change the agricultural practices of decades;
he needs to be taught the importance of improving the diet of bis
family. Meanwhile, if attached to a plantation, he knows that the
landlord will furnish subsistence and that he can live on credit during
the growing season as he has always done. .As the advances average
less than $15 per month and families are large, however, a diet meeting
nutritional standards cannot be provided.
In a recent survey of 697 rural families, predominantly farm and
open country nonfarm, at the bottom of the economic ladder in 5
counties in the South,1 the families were asked how many days during the past week their diet had included 5 common items-pork,
eggs, milk, butter, and beef (table 33). The results were little short
of appalling and indicate that the poverty-stricken rural family is
little better off dietetically today than it was 30 years ago.'
In Hawkins County, Tenn., only 17 percent of the families had not
included pork in their diet during the week preceding the survey
while 63 percent had eaten this type of meat every day. None of
these families had had beef during the same week. At the opposite
extreme in pork consumption was Washington County, Miss., in
which 78 percent of the families had had no pork and an even larger
proportion had been without beef. More than three-fifths of the
families in the five counties, many of which contained children, had
had no milk during the week prior to the survey and undoubtedly
that week was not exceptional. Even those reporting milk did not
always have it daily. The total lack of butter was even more fre..
quent than the lack of milk, and little more than one-half of the families
1 Moser, Ada M., Farm Family Dieu in the South Carolina p;edmont, Circular
53, South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Clemson, S. C., June 1935,
p. 12.
1 Ibid., pp. 16-17.
• Phillips, Ark.; Concordia and Natchitoches, La.; Waahington, Miss.; and
Hawkins, Tenn.
• See, for example, White, H. C., "Dietary Studies in Georgia," Dietary Studin
in Rural Region,, Bulletin 221, U. S. Department of Agriculture, W88hfnctoD;
D. C., 1909.
D g111zed lly
Goog Ie
LIVING CONDITIONS •
57
reported consuming eggs. Less than one out of five families had
daily, although it is usually possible for rural families to raise
chickens. Families were also questioned concerning canned food on
hand. Only one out of four had any canned goods available.I Yet
the families were interviewed at some time between January and
March 1939 when those who had canned food for winter consumption
would still be expected to have a supply on hand. The five counties
are admittedly not a representative sample of the Cotton South
but it is believed that conditions are fairly typical of those among
similar families throughout the region.•
eggs
Tal,le 33.-Food Consumption of Low-Income Ruial Families In 5 Southem Counties,
January-March 1939
County 1111d food Item
Total
faro•
Illes
Number of days famllles corummed speclfted food
Items during the week preceding tbe date of survey
None
a
2
1
4
6
II
7
PIIILLIPII, ASL
Pork.. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
i~~·=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Butter•....•••..•.•..••••...•.•..•........
Beef .•..•.•••••••••.••••••••••••........•.
a
a
a
116
116
116
M
70
6
8
84
115
6
80
110
1
a
2
1111
12
111
8
2'
1
4
2
3
1
29
5
2
14
16
II
18
6
'Zl
74
100
142
8
111
2
6
18
2
2
6
a
2
II
1
4
1
4
II
II
II
4
13
8
a
116
H
2
6
II
7
1
7
1
12
1
1
·18
111
a
4
6
II
OOJfllOIUIU, LA.
Pork...........................•..........
:m~~:::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Butter••.•...........•.••.•.••••........•.
Beel•••.•••.•.•.•••••••••••.••............
1117
1117
1117
1117
1117
17
II
7
8
a
4
1
11
"
70
33
1
Jl'4TCBJCTOBD, LA.
Porte •..•••••..•...•••••••••••••••••••.•••.
~ e r••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••..••..
Beef.·······••· .• ••••••••••••• •••.......•.
170
170
170
170
170
111
142
1G2
1117
1113
153
153
153
1111
121
118
130
ISi
143
7
112
111
2
63
II
II
6
1
88
M
611
12
4
a
2
l
1
1
I
2
11
2
10
6
'W.uBIJIIQTOI(. IIJ8I.
Pork.•.••••••.•••..•••••••••••••••••••..•.
=--=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Butter..••••......•••••••••....•..........
Beef..................................... .
IU.11'Elf8, - ·
Park................••.••.• ···•··•·•••••··
~~·=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::
Butter••••...•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Beef.·····································
92
92
92
112
57
411
311
112
'
8
8
'
2
4
1
4
a
7
6
2
'
4
1
6
II
1
6
II
2
'
4
3
88
17
34
31
Source: Survey of Rural Unemployed Not Beoelvlng Public Aid, Dlvlalon of Research, Works Progress
Admlnlstratlon, Waahlncton, D. 0.
1 Data on file, Division of Research, Work Projects Administration, Washington, D. C.
• Bee Dickens, Dorothy, Family Livi,'l'lfl on Poorer and Better Soil, Bulletin No.
320, Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station, State College, Miss .• Bevtember 1937, pp. 12-20.
D
I
edbyGoogl
58 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
Associated with the inadequacies of the diet of low-income farm
families are the types of cooking that prevail. Hot breads, fried
foods, and overcooked vegetables represent the common practices. 7
In addition to the dietary value of production for home use, this
type of agricultural enterprise is an important factor in raising the
income level of the farm family. Sharecropper and share tenant
families with the greatest production for home use tend to have the
largest net incomes. Among 5,133 plantation families surveyed in
1934, it was found that the median net income for all families was $259
but for those families which had no production for home use the median
was only $124. 8 The relation of such production to income is also
indicated by a special analysis of croppers and share tenants on
89 Arkansas plantations. Food produced for home consumption
amounted to 24 percent of the total net income of cropper families and
31 percent of the total for share tenant families. 9 Thus increased
emphasis on gardens and livestock will not only improve diets and
health but also will constitute one step toward raising the net incomes
of poverty-stricken families.
HOUSING
The dietary inadequacies of the agricultural families at the bottom
of the economic ladder in the Southern States are accompanied by
poor housing. The observing traveler in the deep South is rudely
shocked when he sees for the first time the widespread evidences of
rural poverty revealed by farm homes. Houses, of poor construction
to begin with, seldom are repaired either by the landlord or the occupant. Roofs and walls that need repairs, inadequate lighting, overcrowding, lack of other than primitive sanitary facilities, and bare
yards edged by cotton fields are characteristic. A painted house is
often indicative of considerable social as well as economic standing.
From a farm-housing survey made early in 1934, it is possible to
derive a composite picture of farm housing in the South. The majority
of Southern farm families do ~ot own their homes. Most houses are
old, and they are frequently ru need of replacement or major repairs.
In the South Atlantic and East South Central Divisions more than
one-half of all farm houses were at least 25 years old at the time of the
survey, and unpainted frame structures predominated. Houses are
7 White, Max R., Ensminger, Douglas, and Gregory, Cecil L., Rich LandPoor People, Research Report No. 1, U. 8. Department of Agriculture, Farm
Security Administration, Region III, Indianapolis, Ind., January 1938, p. 51.
• W:oofter, T. J., Jr. and Others, Landlcrd and Tenant on the CoUon Plantation,
Research Monograph V, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1936, p. 221.
• Blalock, H. W., Plantation Operations of Landlcrds and Tenant, in Arkansas,
Bulletin No. 339, Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Fayetteville, Ark.,
May 1937, p. 25.
Dg1111edovGoogle
Fu rm s,·c11 rity ~dm iJJ i.~I, uliuu
i
Lu11y,· J.
Sharecropper Home.
D Qllt ed lly
Goog Ie
Digitized by
Google
LIVING CONDITIONS •
59
usually of one story and contain four to five rooms. In neither the
East South Central nor West South Central Division is there an
average of even 1 closet per house and in the South Atlantic Division the average is only 1.1 closets. Bathrooms and basements are
rarely found. While 23 percent of the farm houses in the South
Atlantic Division had water supplied to the houses either by means of
hand pumps in dwellings or piped from outside, this convenience was
reported for only 9 percent of the farm homes in the East South
Central Division and 17 percent in the West South Central Division.
In all three divisions even fewer housewives had running water and
the convenience of a kitchen sink with drain. Stoves or fireplaces
in contrast to central heating systems are almost universally relied
on for heat with wood the usual fuel for both heating and cooking.
One measure of the widespread need for repairs is the fact that in
all three Southern divisions one-third of the roofs, doors and windows,
and interior walls and ceilings were reported to be in poor condition. 10
Because of such inadequacies Southern farm families are the most
poorly housed farm families in any geographic region. Moreover,
the averages are influenced by the more well-to-do farm families so
that the a.hove description represents better than average housing
conditions among the cropper and laborer families.
Data from the recent Study of Consumer Purchases for white fa.rm
families in two counties in North Carolina and six counties in South
Carolina, indicative of the general situation, show that lack of plumbing facilities is almost universal below the $1,000 income level (table
34). With more than 9 out of 10 households reporting no indoor
water supply, the dangers from a health standpoint are obvious.
Tcr&le 34.--Plumbing Facilities Reported by White Fann Operator Families in 8 Counties
1
in North Carolina and South Carolina, by lncome,2 1935-36
[Nonrolief families that Include husband and wife, both nath·e·bom)
Percent havinll !pecl6ed facilities
Income
Lelis than $:mG __·-----------------·-· ...
$2'i0--$499. --- -- -- ______ -- -- ---- -- -- _•. ___
$.'.OO-$i49._ ·- ------------------------·- ·Si,.0-$999... _----------------------· _....
Total
Any
families
Indoor
runnin~
water 1
22
123
237
284
0.0
0.8
0.8
1.8
No
Indoor
water
supply
100.0
91.1
91.6
91. 8
Running hot Kitchen
and rold water
sink
Indoor
for b3lhlub
with
toilet
or shower
drain
0.0
0.0
0. 4
0.4
0.0
2. 5
4. 6
2. 8
o.o
0.8
0.4
I. 8
1 Erlgccome and Nash, N. C.; Clarendon, Darlington, Florence. Lee, Marlon, and Sumter, S. C.
• Excludes families with incomes of $1.000 or more.
• Excludes indoor hand pumps, which were not cla.sslfled as Indoor running water.
Source: Study of Consumer Purchases, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau or Home Economics,
Washington, D. C., Preliminary release, June 15, 1938.
10 Bureau of Home Economics, The Farm-Housing Survey, Miscellaneous Publication No. 323, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., March 1939,
passim.
D1gi• led by
210073 "-4o--6
Goog1e
60 • THE PLANTA TJON SOUTH
HEALTH
By reason of the poor housing, inadequate sanitary facilities,
unbalanced diets, and low educational level associated with their
meager incomes, the poverty-stricken families in the rural South
have high rates of illness which in turn constitute a tremendous
drain on their slender resources. For example, well over one-half
of the Southern farm families in the lowest income groups in 10
selected counties, families already certified as in need but not yet
receiving public assistance, were in debt for medical care during
January-March 1939."
Not only do the ignorance and poverty of the Southern sharecropper and laborer operate against effective care of the sick but also
the simple household equipment and sanitary facilities which are
essential for the prevention of contagion are largely lacking among
these groups. Moreover, public measures for control are less fully
developed in rural than in urban areas. In a group of 40 Southern
counties surveyed in 1936, two-thirds were found to lack adequate
supervision to prevent the spread of the common childhood diseases of
measles and whooping cough while one-third were below standard
in the steps necessary for the control of scarlet fever. 11 As ]ate as
January 1939 six of the Southern States did not have State legislation making smallpox vaccination compulsory, and three additional
States had only local option.
Three diseases which are readily controlled if proper preventive
measures are applied and which remain major health problems in the
rural South are typhoid and paratyphoid fever, pellagra, and malaria.
That typhoid and paratyphoid fever can be brought under control
with an effective program of prevention is illustrated by the decline
in North Carolina from 35.8 deaths per 100,000 total population
from this cause in 1914 to 2.3 deaths in 1937. 13 Some of the other
Southern States have reduced the death rate from this cause to an
even lower figure. Yet in 1936, 40 percent of all deaths from typhoid
or paratyphoid fever in the United States occurred in the rural areas
of 12 Southern States. H
Pellagra is much more prevalent in the South than records show; a
large proportion of the persons affected never see a physician and
the death rate is not a measure of incidence. The extent of the
11 Data on file, Division of Research, Work Projects Administration, Washington, D. C.
11 Technical Committee on Medical Care, TM Need for a National Health
Program, Interdepartmental Committee to Coordinate Health and Welfare
Activities, Washington, D. C., 1938, p. 10.
JJ State Department of Health, Raleigh, N. C.
14 Bureau of the Census, Mortality Statistic&: 1936, U. S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C., 1038, table 5.
D git,zed by
Goos le
LIVING CONDITIONS• 61
disease is in inverse correlation to family income. Since it is due to a
faulty or unbalanced diet, a major step in its control within a given
family is recognition of the need for cultivating a garden. This,
however, is often difficult as the cotton sharecropper or tenant is
ordinarily under pressure to devote his time and energies and acreage
to the production of the money crop. Even when gardens are planted,
the Southern agriculturist is prone to neglect winter vegetlj.bles and
therefore has fresh vegetables for only part of the year. The importance of gardens is directly illustrated by the seasonal incidence of
pellagra, which increases in the late winter or early spring after several months when fresh garden products are not generally available
to low-income families. Because of the same circumstances, moreover,
various other deficiency diseases, such as scurvy, beriberi, nutritional
edema, and nutritional anemia, also occur throughout the South. 11
That malaria is now primarily a Southern rural disease is indicated
by the fact that rural areas of 12 Southern States accounted for more
than two-thirds of all deaths from this cause in 1936. 18 Its toll is
measured both by deaths and by morbidity rates. Such illness has
been a serious factor in lowering the productivity of Southern workers.
A tremendous advance in the control of malaria has been made in
recent years, however, through the CWA, FERA, and WPA programs.
Under these 3 programs almost 2,000,000 acres of swamps have been
drained, affecting the health of 15,000,000 people. 17
Another major health problem in the South is the control of venereal
disease. Prevalence rates for syphilis have been found to be much
higher among Negroes as a whole than among whites. Among both
races, low incomes of rural families make public provision for treatment necessary. 18
Associated with the inadequate control of various diseases are the
insufficient provisions for infant and maternal care. The infant mortality rate (number of deaths under 1 year of age per 1,000 live births)
in rural areas of the Eastern Old South region for 1930-1934 was 66
in comparison with a rate of 57 for the United States. 19 In the three
Southern geographic divisions combined the rural infant mortality
rate for 1933-1935 was 56 per 1,000 for white infants and 80 per 1,000
11 Sebrell, W. H., "The Nature of Nutritional Diseases Occurring in the South,"
The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, October 1939, pp. 358-366.
te Bureau of the Census, Mortality Statistic&: 19S6, op. cit.
n Works Progress Administration, Inventory, Washington, D. C., 1938, p. 44.
u Clark, Taliaferro, The Control of Syphilis in Southern Rural Areaa, Julius
Rosenwald Fund, Chicago, Ill., 1932, pp. 5-6; and Burney, L. E., "Control of
Syphilis in a Southern Rural Area," American Journal of Public Health, September
1939, pp. 100&-1014.
11 Mangus, A. R., Rural Regiom of the United States, Division of Research,
Work Projects Administration, Washington, D. C., 1940, table 5.
Digi• led by
Google
62 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
for Negro infants .., A physician was in attendance at only one out of
five Negro births in rural districts in 1935, and practically none of the
births occurred in hospitals. 21 This dependence upon midwives
rather than physicians at birth is widespread among the poorer white
families as well as among Negro families. In a survey of 16 rural
counties in Georgia during the winter of 1935-36, it was found that
of 770 confinements among white women 14 per cent were attended
by midwives; of 650 confinements among Negro women 82.9 percent
were attended by midwives. 22
A further index of the inadequacy of health services is the limited
hospital facilities. In the Georgia survey referred to above it was
found that 9 of the 16 counties had some hospital facilities but only
2 of the 9 had an adequate number of beds. Moreover, most of the
counties had no public provision for the care of the indigent sick.
Such data are illustrative of conditions not only in the limited area
surveyed but also throughout much of the rural South. Even where
hospital facilities have been provided, the isolated farm family may
be cut off from such benefits by transportation difficulties.
One of the most effective methods of meeting the medical needs of
low-income farm families is through county plans for medical care
developed by the Farm Security Administration in cooperation with
State medical associations. 23 By January 1939 such programs had
been put into operation in 59 Arkansas counties, in 12 Mississippi
counties, and less widely in Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee,
and Texas. Plans are also under way for extension of the program
into several other Southern States.
Much emphasis has been placed on the importance of the educational training received by Southern rural children to other sections
of the country to which many of them will migrate. It is also germane
to emphasize their physical well-being. If they are subject to various
chronic diseases or have uncorrected disabilities, they may be dangerous to others or less effectual producers themselves. Thus,
improved health facilities for the South will have an economic value
not only for the section itself but also for the other sections which
draw upon its surplus population.
:ao Tandy, Elizabeth C., Infant and Maternal Mortality Among Negrou, Bureau
Publication No. 243, U.S. Department of Labor, Children's Bureau, Washington,
D. C., 1937, p. 12.
11 Ibid., p. 7.
D Conducted by the Medical Association of Georgia and the State Department
of Health with the cooperation of the United States Public Health Service. See
Proceedings of the National Health Conference, Washington, D. C., July 18, 19, 20,
1938, pp. 81-82.
11 Williams, R. C., "Medical Care Plans for Low-Income Farm Families,"
The HeaUh Ojficer, Vol. 3, January 1939, pp. 245-252.
D 1111
edbyGoogle
LIVING CONDITIONS • 63
EDUCATION
Dire poverty and lack of education constitute one of the many
vicious circles which characterize large areas of the rural South.
Comparisons of expenditures per child, teachers' salaries, length of
school term, and related items for the Southern States and all other
States need not be repeated here. 14 By every educational criterion
Southern States as a group rank lowest in spite of the very appreciable
advances in educational facilities which have occurred within the last
few years. In any effort to farm intelligently, to spend his limited
income to the best advantage, to raise his status either economically
or socially, tho average Southern farm dweller faces the handicap of
inadequate education. Not only is this true of the older generation
but even more serious is the fact that the rising generation is also lagging well below the educational average for the country as a. whole.
Most of the Southern States ma.kc strenuous efforts to support their
schools but limited financial resources plus high fertility rates and the
necessity of supporting two separate school systems, one for white
children and one for Negro children, make the provision of opportunities commensurate with those in the wealthier States impossible.
The Southeastern fa.rm population, which received only 2.2 percent
of the national income in 1930, was faced with the responsibility of
educe.ting 13.4 percent of all children of school age. For the entire
South the proportion of the national income received by the farm
population was 3.4 percent, but the proportion of the Nation's children of school age was 17.2 percent. 16
.
In the face of lack of information on the educational attainments of
the general population, the extent of illiteracy in the South has been
particularly stressed. An effective attack on this problem has been
ma.de through the Emergency Education Program of the FERA-WPA
under which, from 1933 through June 1938, more than one-half million
persons in both urban and rural areas of 12 Southern States N were
taught to read and write. These States accounted for more than 50
percent of all persons in the United States who aehieved literacy as a
result of the program. While learning to read and write may be
accomplished without the individual becoming functionally literate, it
is an important first step, and its attainment by such numbers
M
For data see Office of Education, Biennial Survey of Education in the Unit«l
Statu, U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C.; Woofter, T. J.,
Jr. and Others, Landlord and Tenant on the Cotton Plantation, Research Monograph V, Division of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Wash~
ington, D. C., 1936, ch. IX; and Edwards, Newton, Equal Educational Opportunity for Youth, American Council on Education, Washington, D. C., 1939.
• Edwards, Newton, op. cit., p. 88.
• Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
Dlgi::zed by
Google
64 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
represents a tremendous achievement. Since there were more than 2
million illiterates in the 12 States in 1930, however, there are far
greater numbers still to be taught if illiteracy rates are to drop to a
minimum. While adult education can hardly be overemphasized, the
major stress must be upon the rising generation. The public schools
must increase their effectiveness in Southern rural areas if all children
capable of learning to read and write are to become truly literate.
Unless this is done the Southern States will continue to have a sizable
group which is ill-equipped to manage its own affairs.
That the extent of illiteracy increases as one descends the economic
scale is well known. The relationship between these two factors
among Negro agricultural workers has been summarized as follows:
"* • • there is a much greater tendency for Negroes to be able
to read and write when they independently operate small farms for
themselves, or if a family or so of them work for a single white family,
than there is if they are grouped together in large numbers as wage
hands, croppers, or share tenants on the plantations.".,
One recently available source of information on educational attainment is the data for relief households. These materials are indicative
of the educational status of a much larger proportion of the population
than that actually on relief because in the South the number of
destitute families has far exceeded the capacities of the relief program.•
In a survey of heads of open country households on relief in October
1935 it was found that 1 out of 10 white heads and 3 out of 10 Negro
heads in the Eastern Cotton Area had had no formal schooling (table
35). Less than 1 in 4 of the white heads and only 1 in 25 of the Negro
heads had advanced beyond the seventh grade. Moreover, the
children in relief households had a poor attendance record with one
out of nine of the white children and about one out of five of the Negro
children, even within the compulsory attendance ages of 7-13 years,
not attending school (table 36).
In October, the survey month, cotton picking is a factor in poor
school attendance, because in the Southeast the children of the household are expected to join their elders in the fields whenever requiremen ts for hand labor mount. Cotton picking may extend throughout
the autumn months and may keep children out of school until January
unless the school is adjusted to the cotton cycle. Labor needs during
the planting season also interrupt school attendance for many children.
Tobacco likewise utilizes much child labor in Southeastern farming
areas, and hours are long.
27 Smith, T. Lynn, The Population of Loui11iana: Ita Composition and Changes,
Louisiana Bulletin No. 293, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, La.,
November 1937, p. 67.
• See ch. VI.
D q1t1 ed by
Goog Ie
LIVING CONDITIONS • 65
TaW. 35.-School Attainment of Heads of Open Country Families in the Eastern Cotton
Area Receivin9 General Relief, by Color, Odober 1935
Lut grade OI' year completed
Total.........................................................
Total
White
2, IM8
Negro
2,300
64&
Percent distribution
Total ........................................................ .
Grade and hlo:h school:
None ......•.•.•••.••••••••..•.. • • ················-············ •
1-3... • ..............•..•.••...•... ····•·•••·••·•••···•·•·•··•••
4-7
·········•················································
8....••.•••••.•.••••••••••••••••••• •••••• •••••• ••••••••••••••••••
.... 11. ••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••
12.. ············•••••·•••·•••·••··•·•·•••·•·•·•··••••••••••·•·•••
College:
1-3..... ···•·••••••••·•••·•••·• ·····•••••·•·•••••••••··••••••••••
4 or more ......••••••••••••..•.•..••.•.•.•.•••••••••••••••••••••
100.0
100.0
mo
14.11
21.2
411. 7
8.8
7.6
0.6
10. 3
17.6
411.6
10.6
11.3
0.8
211. 7
M.l
32.2
1.1
1.11
0. D
1.1
0. 7
0. 7
0.6
Source: Zimmerman, Carle C., and Whetten, Nathan L., Rural FamUlu on &lief, Research Monograph
XVII, Division or Boclal R-.reh, Works Progress Administration, W uhlnKt<,n, 0. C., 1938, p. l<l7.
Ta&le 36.--Percent of the Open Country General Relief Population 7 Throu9h 17 Yea11
of A9e in the Eastem Cotton Area Attendin9 School, by Color, Odober 1935
Percent attending school
Ap
Total
7-13 :,mn... ·-·······················-········-····-················
14-111 yeu"!I••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
J&-17 yeu"!I•••• ••••• ··- •••••••••••••• ·- ··---· --·-····----. ·--·-·-·-··
White
87.<l
72.0
31l.1
811.1
73.11
211.8
Nepo
81.11
65.3
13. 8
Souree: Maneus, A. R., ~nglno ,bpttU of Rural Reluf, Re9earch Monograph XIV, Dlvlllon ol Boclal
~ . Wora Procr- Admlni5tratlon, Washington, D. C., 11138, p. UK.
In addition to the demand for their labor, the children in many
farm sections of the South still face such handicaps in attaining an
education as inaccessibility of schools, health problems, la.ck of books,
and lack of clothes (appendix table 25). Except in States providing
transportation to consolidated schools, dirt roads and long distances
form a combination that makes school attendance virtually impossible
for many children, both white and Negro, except under the most
favorable weather conditions. There is a direct relationship, moreover, between retardation, as measured by the percent of children who
are over-age for their grades, and distance from school (table 37).
The farther the child has to go to attend school the less likely he is to
make normal progress. The indifference of many parents, themselves
illiterate or only semi-literate, is another factor that weighs heavily
both in nonattendance and in irregular attendance. Among those
segments of the Southern rural population which are least educated
themselves, the attainment of even an elementary school education
by their children is least valued.
D91
zedbyGooglc
66 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
Ta&le 37.-Negro Rural Children Who Are Over-age for Their Grade, by Distance
to School 1
Percent
DistanOI' to school
OVtr-ilge
Leas than 1 mile ___________________________________________________________________________ _
1-1 H miles __________________ . __________________________ . _________________ ...... ______ . __ . __
2-2\i miles ___ .. _... ___ ._. ____ . ___ . __ .. _____ .... __ .. _.. __ .... _____ ._._ .. _______ . ___________ _
3-3H miles _______ . _____ ... _.-----_. --- ... _____ . ____ . __ ----· .. - ----- -----------------------H~i mile•_ ... __________________________________ . ___ . ____ ---------------------------------5 miles or more .. _________________ - ___ --- . ________________ . _- ______ . _______________________ _
1
Ml
71.6
75.1
7&.9
77.S
79.2
Based on a study or 638 rural schools in 28 count!~ or ft Southern States.
So11st'e: Osllvcr, Amhro~t'!. Arailo 1,ilil• of Etf11•oli,m to N,qro,. in Rflral Commt1111Ht! Bulletin, 11131, No.
0
12. U.S. Department or the Interior, Office of Education, Washingt-0n. D. C., 1936, p. 66.
Though the general trend throughout the United States to raise the
age limits for compulsory school attendance is also in operation in
the South, the only States which still have minimum age requirements
as low as 14 and 15 years are found in that section. Whatever the
age limits, laxity in enforcement may more or less nullify the effects.
Another marked trend affecting rural education is the abandonment
of one-room schools, but two-room schools are still widespread. According to a recent review by the United States Office of Education,
Texas has nearly 3,000 two-room schools, Tennessee nearly 2,000
two-room schools, and most other Southern States approximately
1,000 such schools. 211
Concomitant with the disappearance of the smallest rural units is
the trend toward consolidation and the increase in high school facilities.
Most rural schools in the South, however, cannot compete with large
urban schools in the variety of training offered to students. Training
at the high school level is usually traditional in character with the
exception of agricultural and home economics courses and possibly
elementary commercial work. Although commendable in themselves,
they are not sufficient to meet the increasingly apparent need for
vocational education and guidance.
While there is definite need for the expansion of high school opportunities, this should not overshadow the fact that among the lowest
income groups the emphasis must for the present remain on the elementary school. In a recent Julius Rosenwald Fund report, the basic
program needed by elementary rural schools in the South was summarized as follows:
"The first and great reform in rural schools • • • is that
education shall direct itself to the peculiar needs of country children
with a view to making them happy and useful citizens of country life.
21 Cook, Katherine M., "Review of Conditions and Developments in Education
in Rural and Other Sparsely Settled Areas," Biennial Survey of Education in the
United StateB: 19S4-S6, U. S. Department of the Interior, Office of Education,
Washington, D. C., 1937, Vol. I, ch. V, pp. 3-4.
D Jiltzed by
Goog Ie
LIVING CONDITIONS • 6 7
Let us look for a moment at the kind of preparation children need for
rural living. Five items stand out-(1) the ability to read (and write)
clearly and understandingly; (2) some skill in the use of figures; (3)
knowledge of farming, including some general understanding of biological processes and an appreciation of nature; (4) manual dexterity,
especially in the handling of wood, fabrics, and other materials, and
in simple mechanics; (5) health. These are self-evident necessities
for any successful life in the country. It seems naive to argue the
need of education in such obvious items. But the simple fact is that
rural children are not getting from their schools anything approaching adequate preparation in these fundamentals. • • •
"These five subjects we submit as the essentials of the elementary
school in a rural district. If children gain competence in these, they may
live happily and successfully. Surely the learning of five broad topics
is not too much to expect from the 6 to 8 years of the common school.' •ao
Regardless of the extent of opportunities beyond the elementary
school, the achievement of this basic education by every open country child, white and Negro, in the South would represent a fundamental step in raising not only the educational level but also the general
social and economic level.
PLANE OF LIVING
The low level of living and restricted opportunities of the average
farm family in the South are emphasized by the rural-farm plane-ofliving index (fig. 11). This index combines the average value of the
Fig. II - RURAL-FARM PLANE-OF-LIVING INDEX IN
32 RURAL - FARM CULTURAL REGIONS '''
1930
,:, Median county.
Source : Mangus. A. R., Rural Regions
of the United States, Div ision of Research, Work Projects Administrolion.
Woshington. D. C.. 1939. p. 9.
WPA 3314
so Embree, Edwin R., Juliw Rosenwald Fund, Review for the Two-Year Period
1933-36, Chicago, Ill., 1936, pp. 6 and 10.
o 1111
edt1vGoogle
68 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
fann dwelling, the percent of farms having automobiles, the percent
of farm homes having electric lights, the percent having running
water piped into the house, the percent having telephones, and the
percent having radios in 1930. 11 On this basis the rural-farm indices
for the Eastern Old South, Mississippi Delta, and Westem Old South
Regions were 26, 16, and 26, respectively, in comparison with the
United States average of 100. These three regions, practically coterminous with the Cotton South, have the lowest indices of any region
except the Ozark-Ouachita Region. 81 Moreover, while these areas
have high proportions of Negroes, a low level of living is characteristic of white tenants and laborers as well as Negroes, as previous sections of this analysis have indicated.
One of the most promising developments for improving general
living conditions in the South is the expansion of electrical service. Great strides have been made in this direction in several
Southern States within the last 4 years, but not one of them is yet
up to the national average of 22.1 percent of all farms receivingcentral-station service, June 30, 1939 33 (table 38). The importance of
electricity in raising the standard of living does not stop with lights
and such electrical equipment as can be afforded but it also facilitates the use of pressure water systems for household plumbing.34
This in tum carries important health benefits as it means a protected
water supply.
Ta&le 38.-Farms in 12 Southern States Receiving Central-Station Service, June 30, 1939
Estimated
Percent of
number or estimated numrarms reoelv• ber or rann.1 tn
Ing service
State 1
State
Alabama .•••.•.............................•.••••••.....••..•...........
Arkansas .•..••..•.......•.......•...................•.................••
Georgia_ ..••••••...••..•.•....•..........•...••..•••.•..•..•............•
Kentucky •••••••........•..•....••................•.....................
Louisiana ..••..•••..•.......•......•...••......................•......•.
~~~bss~.fr~iina::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Oklahoma .. __ ...•.....•...•••......•................................••.•
South Carolina ..••.....•.........•.•............................••....••
Tenn-..•.•••.•.•.•••••...•••••••.•.............•...................•
Texas ...•...••...........••........................... -...............••
Virginia •••••.•••........•.........................••...........•..••.•••
'ZT,500
8.000
M,ll6/i
22. 789
12,474
11,641
69,580
9,968
22,562
29,000
«. 484
40,893
11.8
a. 2
11. 7
7. 7
7. 2
s. 6
18.6
4. 8
14. i
10. I
9.3
io. 5
I United State& percent=22.l.
Source: Unpublished data, Rural Electrification Administration, Wash!11111ton, D. 0., October 24, 1111111.
11 Lively, C. E. and Almack, R. B., A Metlwd of Determining Rural Social SubAreaa With Application to Ohio, Mimeograph Bulletin No. 106, Ohio State University and Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Columbus, Ohio, January 1938.
n Mangus, A. R., op. cit., p. 37.
11 Unpublished data, Rural Electrification Administration, Washington, D. C.,
October 14, 1939.
u Report of the Rural Electrification Administration: 1988, Washington, D. C.,
January 1939, p. 24.
D1gi:zed by
Google
LIVING CONDITIONS •
69
While the advantages are obvious, the poverty of many Southern
farmers is such that they cannot meet the costs incident even to the
most economical program for providing electricity. Those farmers
who have this facility are the more well-to-do operators and the possibilities of electricity becoming available to the average sharecropper
or farm laborer, let alone his being able to purchase appliances, appear
to be slight under present conditions.
Directly related to plane of living as well as to education is the
availability of reading materials. Here, too, most Southern States
lag, with restricted public library facilities and with limited circulation
of magazines (appendix tables 26 and 27). Virginia is the only one of
the 12 Southern States analyzed which approaches the United States
average in volumes per capita in public libraries. North Carolina,
which leads the group of States in the proportion of the rural population residing in local public library districts, had only 30.3 percent of
the rural population in such districts in 1934. At the opposite extreme
was Arkansas with only 2.9 percent. Circulation of magazines is
primarily dependent upon the economic and educational level of individual families. So far 88 4 7 national magazines are concerned the
12 Southern States studied rank at the bottom among the 48 States.
They make a somewhat better showing on circulation of farm publications with four States above the national average.
The problems of rural living in the South described in terms of need
for balanced diets, improved housing, control of disease, better schools,
and availability of such items 88 radios and magazines all reflect the
economic situation. There are also the related questions of lives
characterized by drudgery and monotony and of the need for changing
attitudes and habits and broadening cultural horizons. The cotton
cycle is such that periods of heavy labor demands are interspersed
with long periods when little time is required for farm operations.
In general the low-income Southern farm family lacks the training,
the facilities, and the incentive to take advantage of these periods of
leisure either for improving its surroundings or for self-improvement.
The need for broad programs for social and economic reconstruction
should not obscure the possibilities of helping the individual family
to improve its own living conditions.
Dlgi::zed by
Google
0 g111zed by
Goog IC
Chapter VIII
PROGRAMS AND POLICIES
A
COMMISSION appointed by President Roosevelt in 1937 to
report on conditions in the South characterized the region as economic
problem number one. From the foregoing pages the rural aspects of
this problem take on definite form.
During the 1930's Southern farm families have added approximately two and a half million potential workers to the labor supply.
The recent industrial expansion has absorbed only a fraction of this
number, resulting in tremendous pressure of population on the economic resources of the region.
Demand for the products of agriculture has been drastically reduced
by the loss of foreign markets and by the shrinkage in purchasing
power of the unemployed group. Meanwhile, mechanization and improved practices have actually reduced the number of families required
by the plantation economy. Owner cash incomes hav·e improved in
the late 1930's, and this class has increased its investment and reduced
its debt. But incomes for plantation croppers and share tenants in
the year of exceptionally large production, 1937, while above the 1934
level, averaged only about $400, including production for home use.
In the years 1938 and 1939, when the total value of the cotton crop was
reduced by a third under that of 1937, a drastic decline both in tenant
income and in the extent of employment of seasonal labor resulted.
Thus, neither industry nor agriculture has absorbed the excess new
workers. Displacement from agriculture has actually added to the
total of idle workers, and a large proportion of the tenants do not make
enough to live on through the winter. This low-income agricultural
group has added tremendously to the task of the agencies of relief and
reconstru,ction.
71
D1q1· zed by
Goog Ie
72 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
The plantation study made in 1934 1 concluded with a series of
recommendations. The principal proposals may be listed as follows:
1. Retirement of submarginal lands from agriculture.
2. Improvement of conservation practices on lands remaining in
agriculture, including erosion control and reforestation.
3. Promotion of family-sized, owner-operated farms to balance the
commercial plantation system and absorb more of the displaced agricultural population.
4. Reinforcement of the family-sized farm by the development of
cooperative devices.
5. Promotion of diversified farming.
6. Coordination of production control and soil conservation.
7. Credit reform.
8. Tenancy reform in the direction of (1) promoting ownership
and (2) improving the status of tenants and protecting their security
through State legislation and written leases.
9. Continuation and expansion of the Fe.deral work program to
care for a larger proportion of the families in need.
10. Continuation and expansion of the rehabilitation program to
aid an increasing number of low-income farmers to establish their
farm operations on a sound basis.
11. Equalization of the social services, especially in health and
education, by use of the broader base of taxation of the Federal Government.
To these should be added:
12. Adaptation of housing programs for low-income groups to
Southern rural conditions.
Social change is inevitably a slow process and these objectives can
not be accomplished overnight. It is appropriate, however, to check
on the extent of the accomplishment of these aims since 1934.
1. Submarginal land retirement designed to take lands of low
fertility out of agriculture has proceeded slowly under small appropriations. The original appropriations have provided for the purchase of
9 million acres of land, and the program is now operated in connection
with the Soil Conservation Service.
2. Soil conservation has been vigorously promoted and more progress made in the 1930's than in the previous 100 years. Experimentation and demonstration of improved practices have developed rapidly, and many States have passed acts authorizing the formation of
soil conservation districts within which the farmers can democratically determine the use of the land and receive aid from the Soil
1
See Woofter, T. J., Jr. and Others, Landlord and Tenant on Uie Cotton Planta,.
lion, Research Monograph V, Division of Social Research, Works Progress
Administration, Washington, D. C., 1936.
D1gi' led by
Goog1e
PROGRAMS AND POLICIES • 73
Conservation Service in inaugurating improved practices. The
number of districts so authorized in the South is 73 or nearly half of
the total in the United States.
Reforestation contributes not only to the rebuilding of exhaustedsoil but also to the preservation of valuable natural resources. A
large proportion of the submarginal lands purchased has been included
in national and State forests. Any program for rehabilitation in the
South must take into account the fact that 30 percent of Southern
lands are in forests. The infant pulp industry in the South can
probably develop a •market for slash pine as a money crop, but even
the fast-growing slash pine takes a number of years to mature and the
investment over these years requires more capital than low-income
farmers have available.
3. The promotion of family-sized farms has not been attacked
directly except in the case of the rehabilitation borrowers and tenant
purchase clients of the Farm Security Administration. Well over
300,000 of these, chosen from the lowest income group in the South,
have been placed on family-sized farms and started on the road to
ownership. They have undergone marked improvement in financial
position and level of living through careful planning of their operations.
The average net worth of 116,000 Southern families included in a
survey made as of the end of the 1938 crop year had increased from
$451 to $752 since they had been under the guidance of the rehabilitation program.
The readjustment of the land to the population is necessarily a slow
development and requires considerable aid to individual initiative.
Available tracts are often too large or require too much capital outlay
for drainage or improvement to adapt them to small holdings. Government purchase of such lands for resale after improvement would
facilitate the increase of small holdings and the accommodation of
more people on the land.
4. The promotion of cooperation among small holders has been
approached experimentally by the Farm Security Administration.
The size of cooperative enterprises varies greatly. Some farms have
been set up on a completely cooperative basis, some with individual
operating units and cooperative ownership of stores, gins, and heavy
machinery, and some with cooperation among a few farmers in the
ownership of a registered sire or a piece of heavy machinery. The real
task of promoting cooperation is, however, one of education and will be
a long process.
5. Diversification is making progress in the South as is indicated by
estimated increases in the proportion of the cash income from livestock and by the ratio of home-use production to cash income. The
full development of a balanced general farm program is retarded,
however, by the lack of large urban markets.
Digi• led by
Google
74 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
6. The more recent conservation legislation and programs of the
Department of Agriculture have emphasized benefits paid for the cultivation of soil-conserving crops planted on acreage formerly devoted
to staple crops. This has had the double objective of controlling the
supply of agricultural products with a resulting stabilization of prices
and at the same time conserving the soil. The one year in which
cotton production was relatively uncontrolled and the one year in
which tobacco restrictions were removed were sufficient to pile up
surpluses in these commodities which were well-nigh ruinous to the
producers. There seems to be no immediate h~pe of recovery of a
sufficient foreign market to restore cotton to its former export pm,ition unless prices are drastically lowered. Also, the outlook for tobacco
exports is not promising in view of the current European situation.
A program of control is, therefore, basic to the welfare of the cotton
and tobacco farmers.
7. Credit reform has aided the owner operators but has not extended
to the tenants. The owner's average rate of interest on mortgages
has been reduced by shifting mortgage debts from private to governmental agencies. There has, however, hem only slight improvement
in the production credit situation for either the owner or the t<>nant.
8. Commendable beginnings have been made in attacking the
problem of tenancy. The Bankhead-Jones bill provides a small sum
for financing tenants who wish to become owners and allows them a
long period for repayment. Of necessity, this program had to be small
in the beginning, and up to July 1939 the Farm Security Administration had approved only about 3,200 tenant purchase loans in 14
Southern States. If the land and the funds were available, thousands
of other tenants could be started on the road to ownership. These
farms are practical units from the viewpoint of the ability of the land
to produce the purchase price over a period of years. Every effort is
made to improve the land and buildings insofar as is consistent with
economy. The result in many areas is a homestead which stands out
as a bright example in the midst of surrounding unimproved tenant
farms. Thus, while the quality of these farms is a distinct advance,
their quantity is far below the existing need.
In improvement of leases, progress has been made with those farmers
who wne so low in the economic scale as to become eligible for Farm
Security Administration loans; some 72,000 of them have written
leases. The movement for State legislation requiring such leases is
just beginning, however.
9. The Federal work program provides employment for several
hundred thousand rural families. As long as population increases
and labor displacements are not absorbed by industry or agriculture,
a program of public employment will be necessary. The present
operation of the program is hampered in rural areas by the lack of
D q1t1 ed by
Goog Ie
PROGRAMS AND POLICIES•
75
construction skills by the workers involved and the poverty of sponsoring communities. For this reason the rural program should tend
more and more in the direction of providing rural services, such 88
education, sanitation, recreational facilities, and electrification, and
necessary work in reforestation and soil conservation. The Work
Projects Administration has not in the past conducted projects of all
these types. Modifications in the 1941 act with reference to such
work should provide for increased employment along these lines and
should greatly facilitate the programs of forest and erosion control and
rural electrification. As indicated in the discussion of relief needs, the
funds available for the work programs in the South have never been
sufficient to care for the large number of needy families.
10. The rehabilitation program of the Fa.rm Security Administration h&B been expanded since its inception in 1934 until nearly 350,000
farmers in the South have been aided with loans and 150,000 with
emergency grants. Of these, nearly 250,000 remained active loan
c&Bes in the summer of 1939 in the sense that they were securing advice
and supervision in their farming and homemaking problems. This
service is as important as, if not more important than, the financial
aid offered to these low-income farmers whose rehabilitation is usually
as much a task of education and supervision as it is of financial aid.
Here also funds have been inadequate for the magnitude of the task,
and the difficulties are complicated by the increasing scarcity in some
counties of available good land for rehabilitation clients.
11. Federal assistance for rural sections which are financially unable to attain urban standards for social services in spite of heavy tax
burdens has been strongly advocated by three recent Presidential
committees or conferences-one in the field of education, one in public
health, and one in child welfare.
These groups have emphasized the fact that the future of the Nation
is largely dependent on the care and rearing of the children in low-income families since these families include by far the largest number of
children and are largely located in the areas of the most inadequate
institutions. The children from these families enter the labor market
in all sections of the country. Legislation looking toward the equalization of opportunity in education, public health, and child welfare by
Federal grants based on need has been strongly recommended, but as
yet no action has been taken.
12. The program of lending for the improvement and construction
of owned houses as operated by the Federal Housing Authority is, of
course, available to urban and rural dwellers alike. A vigorous program for low-income housing; such as that operated by the United
210973°-40--7
Dlgi::zed by
Google
76 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
States Housing Authority, could provide not only improved living
conditions but also much nonfa.rm employment for the rural population. Considerable progress has been made in the development of
programs for urban housing, but despite the urgent need the adaptation of these programs to rural conditions has lagged far behind.
Without some such subsidy as that included in the urban housing projects, it will be nearly impossible to build adequate rural houses which
can be paid for out of the income from the land.
Although marked progress has been made in meeting certain problems and little in meeting others, the numerous books, reports, and
discussions of the past few years dealing with conditions in the South
have stimulated public opinion to such an extent that it is far more
enlightened and unified than ever before with respect to Southern
needs. While the report of the President's Committee on Economic
Conditions in the South 2 was factual and contained no recommendations, the public discussion which followed in Southern communities
and organizations resulted in substantial agreement on the recommendations outlined above, adding, on the nonagricultural side, the
need for extension of industrial development, tariff reform, and adjustment of inequities in freight rates. With substantial agreement
of enlightened opinion as to the things which need to be done, it should
be safe to predict that over a period of time major achievements will
result.
1 National Emergency Council, Report on Economic Conditiom of the South,
Washington, D. C., 1938.
D '1111 ed by
Goog Ie
Appendixes
77
D ,JIit ed lly
Goog Ie
0
111
ed
vGooglc
Appendix A
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
TolJle 1.-Crop Acres per Plantation, by Area, 193-4--1938
Total
planta-
Area
tlona
i
Crop acres per plantation
1937
I~
1~11~
~
All areas __________________________ _
246
Atlantic Coast Plain ____________________ _
Black Belt (A). _________________________ _
Black Belt (B) __________________________ _
31
31
16
237
Upper Delta.---------------------------Lower
InteriorDelta_---------------------------Plain_ ... ___________________ . ___ _
Mississippi Bluffs _______________________ _
Red River_._---------------------------Ark8IIS88
River _________________________ _
7V
19
574
364
17
27
16
11
396
438
711
934
940
~
460
417
=
=
=
=
3.11
322
233
243
350
243
579
373
342
24 7
646
37 5
282
250
491
256
303
1149
642
249
397
434
382
420
370
340
399
3V2
718
706
557
UOO
778
635
880
TolJle !.-Crop Acres on Plantations, by Area, 1937 and 1934
Number of plantations with specilled acres In crope
Area
Total
plantationa
Less
than
200-399
400-599
200
acres
acres
acres
600-7V9
800-009
acres
1,0001,199
1,200
acres or
more
acres
~ 193711934 1937 193419371934 ~~ 1937 1934
1
------------1---,1937!1934
All
areas__________________
216
59
! 71
IIB
Atlantic Coast Plain ____________ --31___
9
BlackBelt(A) _________________
31 12110
Black Belt (B)_________________
16
6
Ii
Upper Delta. __ . __ .... __ ... ___ ._
79 10 14
Lower Delta __ . __________ . __ .___
19
6 10
Interior Plain. _________________
17
4
6
Mis.sissippi Bluffs_______________
27 10 10
Roo River______________________
15
1
1
Arkllllll88 River_________________
11
1
1
-;-1--;16
10
8
26
6
7
6
4
1 '
13
14
9
24
7
7
6
6
1
34 , 38
2
3
2
12
3
2
4
4
2
2
6
2
14
4
4
3
4
33
16
16
3
1
1
2
l
4
18
2
2
2
2
-
6
l
4
2
I
-
6
1
1
2
2
1
17
12
-
-
1
11
l
1
2
I ,
1
-
4
1
3
2
1
II
-
-
11
-
7
1
1
1
6
1
2
3
8
-
3
1
1
3
79
D1gi:zed by
Google
Ta&/e 3.-0rgani:i:ation of Cropland per Plantation,1 by Area, 1937 and 1934
All areas
Atlantic
Cos.st
Plain
Black
Belt
Black
Belt
(A)
(B)
19371 1934
193711934
193711934
246
81
31
llem
Total plantations. _____________________ ..
1937
l
Upper
Delta
Lower
Delta
Interior
Plain
111
711
Mississippi
BluJfs
l
193411937119341193711934_1 1937
16
~
~934 1~93~ ~934
I
l
Red River
J:
m
"ti
r-
z>
-I
193711934 1_~93~, 1934
27
17
•
-I
Arkansa,i
River
16
>
=
0
11
Crop acres per plantation
All crops _________________________________ j 464 I 400 I 318 I 230 I 341 I 296 I 198 I 197 I 572
Cotton ..... ___ .. ·-----·•--·---·- _·-·-·-·-·-· __
Corn and interplnntcd legumes .. ···-·-·-···-··
Small grain'·····-··· ··-------·-···-·-·-·-·-·Cowpcaandsoybeanhay ·--·-·- ---·-------·Atralfa hny ..... _·-. ··-···---·- .... ----·•·-·-. ..
Other hay crops -·-·•--···•·•-•·-·-···-·-·-·-·
Cow1wa.s an,i soybeans for seod .. ---·-···· .....
Truck. garden, and orchard .. ·-·---·-·-·•···-··
All other crops·--··-·-····----------·-···-·-··_
--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--,--1
230
134
18
20
12
9
3
12
26
178
148
13
14
9
g
I
10
18
99
70
126
25
12
98
11
II
2
4
2
1
8
11
39
311
66
323
9
78
32
12
142
13
22
28
II
1
g
2
3
1
4
1
6
100
160
25
8
2
3
80
137
74
73
20
25
1
1
11
41
6
1
a
g
39
0
;;;
<D
a.
~
C;
0
~
-
2
19
17
z
1114
397
MO
434
358
9tO
8711
1-14
97
5g
81
7
3
24
9
3
21
14
837-
1111
lM
16
1
7
146
139
II
17
•
2
210
1-18
6
173
~
285
627
148
182
144
127
2
6
12
94
12
17
8
84
1
16
26
20
3124024
a21
195
40
2-
•
533
303
2n
~l
9
1
13
14
1
4
2
6
2
18
10
28
23
2
32
1
II
8
:JO
718
220
10
7
4
63
635
20
7
•
4
72
7
3
17
17
43
6
12
Percent distribution
Allcrops. ______________________________ .. J100.o 1100.0 1100.01100.01100.01100.01100.0 1100.0 !100.0 '.100.0 !100.0 1100.01100.0 1100.01100.0 1100.01100.01100.01100.01100.0
Cotton .... ·-·---·-_.·-· •.•.• ____ .•.•.• _______ •.
Corn and interplanted legumes ..
Small v.raln '·····•···•·· ..............•.•.•...
Cowp,•a and soybean hay····-····-····-·•·-···
Alfnifn hay·•··--·-··· •...•.•.•.•........ ·-- ...
Other hay crops ......•. -···•--····
Cow peas and soybeans tor sood ..
···I
Truck, garden, and orchard ...•. _...
All other crops• •••..••.•••. ··-·-.··- .. __ .•••. __
(v
40. 6
28.9
3.9
4. 3
«5
2.6
gJ
2.2
2.2
Q3
2.5
11.0
~6
1.9
~o
aa
a5
~3
31.1 , 30.4
39. 5 42. 6
7.9
4.8
3.8
2.2
«1
0.6, 0.9
0.4
Q9
~3
2.3
Q6
1.3
3.5
12. 3
3.5
16. 2
Q3
a2
~o
27.0
46. 4
6.8
2.0
0.3
1.0
0.3
3.0
13. 2
37. 5 , 33. 5
36. 9 39. 7
12. 6 16. 2
4.5
6. I
2.5,
0. 5
4. 5
1.0
l.5
0.6
2.0
0.6
56.6
24. 8
2. 3
3.8
4. 9
1.0
o. 3
~7
~5
1.7
~5
a9
1.5
Q2
3. 3
2.4
3.o I 2.0
~6
n8
2.3
ao
~6
n2
60.1
41. 8
1.5
1. 5
-
Q3
1.0
1. 3
~9
3. 1
1.0
45.0
39. 0
-
3.8
0.3
1.8
0.5
2.6
7.1
42.9
40. 9
3.2
6.0
0.6
48.4
34.1
1.4
7.4
0.2
2.1
6.8
0.6
1.8
4.6
.
• Less than 0.6 acre or 0.05 percent.
cropland of rcnte1'11 (cash and standing) for which data by crops were not available.
• Prindp,illy oats.
• lo tho Atlantic Coost Plain an,J Black Belt (A) Aroas approximately 10 percent or the crop 11<,'l'e., were devoted to tobacco and/or J!Ollnuts. ·
1 Exelurles
.
48. 2
41. 3
0.6
3.4
0.3
0.8
0.6
2.8
2. 0
~8
~3
Q8
82
~9
2.4
2.2
1.5
~9
~5
1.7
2.8
Q6
~4
2.2
.
Q6
a:i
~l
~5
mo
&O
2.1
2.6
Q4
1.8
~6
~l
~2
~6
2.3
Q8
&2
Q8
Q6
1.4
0
sJ:
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES • 81
To61e ...-Cotton Acreage on Plantations, by Area, 1937 and 1934
Number of plantations with specified percent of crop acres in cotton
Total
U'SS
80
:a>--29
30-39
40--49
50-59
e<Hl9
70-79 percent
plnntn- than 20 percent
percent percent percent percent percent or
tlons percent
more
Area
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --193i 1934 1937 1934 1937 1934 1937 1934 1937 1934 lll3i 1934 193i 1934 1937 1934
--- All area,, __ ------ 1246 14
--- ft
Atlantlc Coast Pie.in ___
31
Black Belt (A). _______
31
ft
Black Belt (B) ________
16 Upper Delta _________ _
79 Lower Delta __________
19
2
Interior Pie.in _________
Ii Mississippi Bluffs _____
71 Red River ____________
15 ArkllIISfls River
11 ------
1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 16 27 38 53 M 4ft 69 53 46 37 14 11 10
5
- - - - - - - - 1
I
6
9 12
9 IO
6
2 I - 2
7
7 12 13 10
4
1
- -1 -3 -6 ftft 176 136 714 -212 -241 -28 --4 -7 -5 --4
1
1
3
4
2
2
1
4
ft
2
1
2
2
l
-1 22 41 57 64 ft 67 123 36 2l 3l -- -2 --- -- -2 -4 -2 •22 34 66 3 31 81 -2 -1 -
6
--1
-
~
2
2
-
In 1934, 4 plantations in the Lower Delta Area were rented out and cotton acrea11:e was not sve.llable.
To61e 5.-Yield of Lint Cotton per Acre, by Type of Tenants and Area, 1937 and 1934
Yield or lint cotton per sere /pounds)
Total
plantations
Wage
laborers
Total
Area
1937
1934
244
'242
31
31
1ft
31
31
16
79
15
17
27
15
11
Share
Croppers
tenanta
1937
1934
1937
1934
1937
lG:34
1937
456
268
445
278
468
203
432
274
292
323
255
305
30-1
25.l
1P2
278
247
188
329
359
276
33S
275
303
28R
45.l
425
274
556
307
508
liO
305
3IO
299
209
48-1
228
1934
-- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -All areas ___ ----------Atlantic Coa.•t Pie.in ________
Black Belt (A) ______________
Black Belt (B) ______________
Upper Delta ________________
Lower Delta ________________
Interior Plain _. -----------Missis.sippi Bluffs ___________
Red River __________________
Arkansas River _____________
I
79
17
17
27
15
11
---322
- -277
- -3211
- -269
- -332
- -283
- -264
259
5.50
452
2tl.~
50-I
392
356
562
554
217
543
388
341
257
·~
249
r,0-1
28!!
280
405
391'i
223
273
332
411-1
193
173
25'J
28i
283
253
214
251
212
147
• 2 plantations in the Lower Delta Aren reporte<I no cotton pro<luced by the SIJ('Clfled types of tenants.
14 plantations in the Lower Delta Arca reported no cotton produced by the specified types or tenant.•.
To61e 6.-Resident Families I on Plantations, by Area and Type, 1934-1938
Area and type of family
ABJ:AS
TotaJ__________ ALL
______
____ ______________________
1938
1936
1937
4,068
1936
4,020
3,943
3,788
3,738
g5
99
88
153
159
263
271
264
224
238
Wage laborer________________________________________
Cropper.
___ --------------------------.-------------Share
tenant_
_____________________ . ____ . ___________ _
196r2
19:71
1104fu
Renter•--------------------------------------------See footnotes at end of table.
7
---1------------Wage laborer _______________________________________ _1 - 674
(,68
618
531
534
Cropper ______________ --- ------ _____ --- __ -----------2,433
2,600
2,598
2,572
2,385
Share tena.nt_ __________________ --------------------70,~
689
716
671
660
Renter•---- ________________________ . __ --------------
A TLANTJC COAST PLAIN
Total. _______________________________________
_
10
I
8
D q1t1 ed by
1851: ,-183~1
13
12
Goog Ie
82 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
TolJle 6.-Resident Families on Plantations, by Area and Type, 193-4-1938-Con.
Area and type of ramUy
1Q36
11138
11137
11138
11134
------
BLACK BJ:LT (.t.)
Total................•..... ·····-··--·······-·.
:1113
:1113
~
1----1----·1---86
88
88
234
238
72
145
15
6
-------
163
16
8
167
G
G
155
11
8
78
lM
16
5
Total ........................ ··--------·-------
109
109
112
106
113
Wage laborer ..• -· __ ._ ......•.•••.. ·-····--·-·---·-··
Cropper . .... ····-·--····················--··---·--··
Share tenant._ ............ ··············----------··
Renter •. ·····-······ ............ ···-···------------·
38
55
6
11
31
62
6
11
M
61
5
30
48
34
50
11
13
15
12
17
Total .... -·- •. -· ..........•. _.·------------···-
1,830
1,112ft
1, 71111
1,687
l,l'IUI
Wage laborer. _____ -· ____ ---· ..•• ·--···-·-·--···---·.
Cropper ...• _·- __ .. _•. _.. _.....•.• _--··-----· ·- --·-· Share tenant_.·----------··-···-··-·----··--··-·-·-Renter •-. ··--···-·-·-··- ......... ·····-·--·-·--···--
262
I, 001
471
6
210
1,117
125
1,108
421
13
123
I, ().15
G
181
1,108
509
1
323
318
300
2111
2116
4
4
11
13
122
82
Wage laborer ... ·-··· .•.•.•••••••••• ·-··------··· •...
Cropper ...... ··········-········--··········-·······
Share tenant..··················-···-···-···-·--···.
Renter• ......................... ·········--···---···
BLACK BJ:LT (Bl
UPPD DJ:LT.t.
~
40fl
15
LOWJ:B DJ:LT.t.
Total·--· ___ -·-·_ •.. _.......•. ···-·------------
1----1·-
7
211
Wage laborer ...• ··-·-·-·---··-- __________ ·--·------Cropper ..........•.. ·-·· ··-··-- --· -----------·-··-··
Share tenant.·············-···-····-····-··-·----···
Renter •........................ -··--···--·--------··
DI
42
88
41
IIO
UM
42
IIO
125
59
86
INTJ:B1OB PL.t.lN
Total .. _.·-._ ..•.............. _·-··---·-·------
1(17
178
Ii.>
176
171
1111
72
3V
38
104
101
28
28
1----l·---+-----1-
Wage laborer····-·--······-----·----·----·--·------r;ropper ....... _••••. --· ·- ••• __ ·--------------------Share tenant .. ······-···············----·--·····-·-·
Renter•····································--··-····
69
in
'Z1
81
'r1
48
97
33
425
406
400
455
451
25
20
321
21
316
83
37
301
76
294
Jll8818111PPI BLvn!1
Total ......................... ··---------······
1----e---
WRg,> laborer········--·-··-··-··-·--··--------······
Cropper ...•.•••••••.•• -· ••.••• -··---·-·--------·-- •.
Share tenant._······-·············--···---------····
Renter •........... __ ........ -··· ·- ··--··-····-------
336
84
85
41
3V
'Ill
311
J:IID RIVI:&
Total ..•• ·-·· .• -· ..••....•...••• -··•-----······
308
304
292
'Z17
Wage laborer.······--·---···· •.•• ---·· .. ··--·-·· ••..
Cropp<•r ..........•• ···-· ··-·-··-·· ·--. ··-·-----··· •.
Share tenant.··························-··----·--···
Renter •....... ····-··-· ....•....... ·········----··-·
73
231
70
230
85
4
4
64
221
7
3ff9
848
.t.BIU.NSA8 BIVIEB
Total ..........................• ___ • ____ ·-- __ •.
_1___29421!_
Wage laborer .... ···············-····--------------·· _ _ _28
Cropper ...... ·--····--···--·-·--····--·--·····--··-·
303
Share tenant.··-······················--···-···--···
28
Renter'·····•·····················--····--··········
t
I
28
-
203
11
---2.5-nl
340
287
28
- I
3113
291
41
-
Excludes displaced families.
Ce.sh and standiJl&.
I)
1tti2edtivGoogle
715
67
199
11
399
---(17-
2112
3V
1
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 83
Tol,le 7.-Type of Tenants on PlantatioM, by Area, 1937 and 193-4
Numbor of plantatlom operated by-
Area
Total
plant&·
tlollll
Wage
Oroppera
laborers
Share
tenants
Renters
(cash and
standing)
More than
1 type
11137
11134
11137
11134
11137
11134
11137
11134
11137
18
7. 3
12
4.11
67
27.2
r,o
llO. 3
13
6. 3
9
2
0.8
4
3. 7
1. 6
146
1111.4
171
1111.6
2
2
II
3
3
26
6
2
11
5
2
--2
---
--4
--
13
26
13
19
27
16
47
12
13
18
9
10
11134
------------ -------All areas:
Numbflr.. ...........
Percent ..............
Atlantic Coast Plain ...••••••.
Black Belt (A) ...••..••.••••••
Black Belt (B) ................
t: pper Delta ........•.•.....•..
Lower Delta ......•..••.•..•...
Interior Plain .................
M is.slsslppl Bluffs .••...•.•....
Red River ........•...•.•••••.•
Arkansas River ................
2411
100. 0
---31
6
31
s
16
4
711
19
17
27
16
11
-
-
3
--1
4
-
3
-8
-
10
2
-
23
I
4
7
2
1
4
--
6
2
-I
-
--
6
2
I
--
43
9
12
15
7
II
Tol,le 8.-Resident Families I per 1,000 Acres of Cropland, by Area and Type, 1937
and 193-4
Resident families per 1,000 acres of cropland
Total
planta•
tlons
Total
11137
1934
34.2
36.6
26. 3
24.1
27.9
40. 0
44. I
21\. 9
34. 7
28.1
33.8
31. 7
25.3
28.3
37. 2
56. 6
28. 8
42. 5
34.4
41.1
Wage
laborer
1937
Cropper
Shore
tenant
1934
1937
1934
1937
5.3
6.2
22.1
23.3
6.0
II. 4
8.1
7.11
4. 6
0. 6
10. 7
I. 7
6.6
2.6
10. 7
7.7
8.5
2. 9
2. 8
6. 6
3. 7
8.4
6.11
12. 4
14.4
15.9
24. 4
29. 3
12. 2
27. 4
21.3
28.6
18. 3
15.4
12.5
24. 4
26. 0
17. 4
27. 6
24.9
30.2
1934
Renter
(cash and
standing)
1937
1934
-------------,-------------------All areas ............... .
2411
Atlantic Coast Plain..•....... --31Black Belt (A)................
31
Black Belt (B)................
16
Upper Delta..................
79
Lower Delta..................
19
Interior Plain .
17
Mis.sissippi Bluffs.............
27
Red River...................
15
11
Ark&Dll88Rlver .••.•.........•
1
6.4
LJ
3. 5
0.8
1.6
1.3
3.0
10. 8 I 9. 5
5. 8 , 13. 2
4. 0 14. 8
5. 6
7. 5
0.3
I.I
2.7
4.0
lOIU
0.8
1.6
0.8
2.8
0. 2
8. 4
-
0.6
4.3
0. 4
14. 6
3. 7
-
Excludes displaced families.
D Jiltzed l.ly
Goog Ie
84 •
THE PLANTATION SOUTH
Tol,le 9.-Type of Off-Plantation Labor, Transportation Arrangements, and Average
1
Miles Traveled, by Area, 1937
Cotton pick Ing
Cotton chopping
Local labor
Plantatloll!
reporting
transportation
furnished
by-
Area
Migratory labor
P Ian tatlons
reporting
transportation
furnished
by-
'i
.:>
.
!I
~
j
All areu ____________
Atlantic Cos.1t Plain _____ .
Black
Belt (Al·----------Black Belt
(B ____________
Uppt'r Delta ______________
Lower Delta ______________
Interior Plain._._. ________
Mis.sLssippl Bluffs ________
Red Hiver_ _______________
Arkansas River····-·-•··
1
>
!l
:11
::::
E
.
s
j
0
a
se !
..
8.
<
.8
Plantations
reporting
transportslion
furnished
by-
"'cl"'
se ..,f
.
8.
<
a
E
Local labor
E
.8
j
0
Plantations
reporting
transport&tion
furnished
by-
'i
.
'ii
!l
!l
::::
et
"'
<
i!
~
,-l
0
. ..8.
8.
"'.,S;
l:
.5-,.
. i"
a
e
.8
0
Migratory labor
~
;;:
&
-<
-------------------- ---24
15
2
2
5
I
12
1
1
4
6
4
2
1
2
3
2
6
1
----
-2
1
-2
--
-2
-
------
-
15
114
36
4
1
1
15
14
13
23
1
1
8
4
-4
12
1
2
16
3
3
2
3
1
4
11
4
30
79
3
II
2
1
2
8
77
!.~
12
98
17
22
- -8 - -4 - -- - -- - 4
-- - II7
2
28
2
-17
2
1
1
1
17
-1
(I
-- --
-
1
1
--1
--
3
Arithmetic mean.
Tol,le 10.-Crop Acres Handled by Tractors and Worlc Stock, by Area and Operation,
1937
Pe=nt of crop acreage In each operation handled by specU!ed power
Breaking
Area
All areas_.-------
Planting
Number of wort
Number of work
stock
stock
TracTracTractor
tor
tor
Atlantic Cos.st Plain._.
Black Belt (Al·········
Black Belt (B ····-·-·Upper Delta_.,.--··--·
Lower Delta.·····-·--·
Interior Ploin.
Mississippi Bluffs·:::::
Red Hiver_ ____________
Arkansas River. _______
Soodbed preparation
38
a
4
3
- 10- - 1
17
1
7 47
6
32 , 56 64 41
3
-
1
-1
-1
-3
-1
2
-
1
-
49
-
79
69
47
41
38
86
26
3~
46
-
-- 9
10
12
46
5
30
4
18
-10
3
4
-
34
3
14
13
2
45
28
9
43
57
31
3
8
-- -
1
1
1
-
-
-
3
2
4
5
-- 11
2
-
'ir1
2
-2
1
2
-
29
14
36
33
35
73
48
43
48
-
24
64
63
62
18
34
13
4
-8
D q1t1 ed by
Numher of
work
stock
,-~
5
26
10
8
14
46
11
Tractor
Number of
work
stock
-~
2
1
67
21
'ir1
42
8
88
87
5
5
32
18
63
77
6
94
15
37
34
36
51
43
30
16
27
--19 24
-6
7
-
Cultivating
-
20
39
31
12
41
68
I()()
54
51
61
74
14
21
Goog Ie
2
-27
Hl~I
18
55
1
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES • 85
Tol,le 11.-0perators' Long-Term Debts, by Type and Area, 1937 and 193-4
Total
Oper&-
ton
wiib debta reporting specffled
Debt Percent of operatorstype
or debt •
Opn- peroi>
ton re- erator
porting re,:tGov•
Mort- Bank Mer- Open
debts
IIOem•
Oiber
pge
chant oount
debta
ment
- - - - - - ---
All&re1111:
Ul37 ______ ··-··-···
1934------------·-·
Atlantic Coast Plain:
246
100 $11,914
128 13,018
246
82.0
89.1
8.0
10. 2
M.O
to.O
--- - - - - - - - - - --- =
1937 _________ - - --- --· - - - I 1134 _____________ . -·· ·- __
LO
l.tl
2.0
0.8
9.0
3.1
4.0
2.3
10.0
:no
10.0
---------
11
11
10
17
4,769
6,661
100.0
1937-···················11134 _____ ··············-·
11
11
20
19
6,116
6,U
116.0
100.0
1931--··· •• ··-·-···· ·-··.
11134 ___ .•• ····---··-·--·.
ltl
ltl
3
7
3,233
2,W
88.0
14. 3
1937•••.....•••••••••••..
11134_ •••••••••.••••••••..
79
79
30
38
19, 3211
16,081
90.0
91.6
6. 6
a. 3
1937.... ··-·············.
11134..•..•••• ··-··-·· ••••
19
19
6
3
3,370
16,333
20.0
86. 7
20.0
86.7
Ul37 ••.•••....•••• -·-····
11134_··--···-············
17
17
9
13
4,809
8,m
100.0
92. 3
7. 7
1937 __ ····-·-············
1934 __ ····-----··--······
27
27
g
11
12, 111
10,326
88.9
100.0
11. 1
1937...--·-·-············
1934_ .. __ .•....•....•. ·-·
16
16
6
12
23,683
28,382
83.3
41. 7
41. 7
1937_·······-··--········
Ul34_ .• --·-···-··-·····-·
11
11
8
10
17,668
23,604
100.0
90.0
20.0
Black Belt (A):
Black Belt (B):
Upper Delta:
Lower Delta:
Interior Plain:
ML,slsslppl Bluff!!:
Red River:
Arkan•as River:
16.0
6.0
811. 7
11.3
2.8
14.3
ti. 7
2. 8
10.0
80.0
7. 7
9.1
16. 7
26.0
8. 3
a.a
• Some operators reported more than 1 type of debt.
Tol,le 12.-Plantation Mortgages,• by Annual Rate of Interest and Type of Laan,
1937 and 193-4
Typeof)OIID
Total mortgages
Annual rate or tutereat
1937
Total_._-·-·-·-·--···---···---_
101
2.6 percent ___ . __ ··-················-3.0 peroent·---······-··············-·
3.6 percent_···- .................... _.
1
1
12
-l.O percent. ___ -· ...........•...•.•...
4,6
5.0
6.5
6.0
28
•
perceTlt. ___ .. _. ···········-·····-·
percent_·-····· ..•........•......•
percent __ ·-·· .. ············--····percent_ ..•.. ···········-·-·······
28
2
H
6.6 percent __ ···-·.····-···---··--···7.0 percent_-·-· •.. ··-··-···--··-·· ..•
t~~c:~~-::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Average I rate ...•.......... --_
1
7
2
6
1934
11137
11134
125
116
3
12
26
10
26
18
1
11
•
16
1
34
6
2
1
1
6
11
3
Unknown
Oiber
Government
11137
1934
1934
1937
611
28
33
7
2
8
1
1
a
1
7
1
1
8
ltl
14
7
1
II
18
5
6
1
9
1
- - - - - - --- --- =
=
=
4.8
4. 4
5.8
6.5
5. 6
6.0
2
10
a
H
1
2
37
1
4
6.3
1
1
2
2
=====
6.tl
• Including other than llnt mortpcee.
• Arithmetic mean.
D 1111
edbyGoogle
Table 73.-0peraton' Short-Term Credit, by Type I and Amount of Loans, Annual Rate of Interest, and Area, 1937 and 1934'
All
Rrt'IIS
Typ,, of loan
193;
Tota l plantations
[ 1931
ALl.un lk
lllack Bt>lt
<"•m~t Plain
Black Belt
(A)
(B)
I I
rn:i;
216
IY31 1 1937
I
19341 193,
1934 1 1937
16
31
31
I
UpJ)('r Delta
[ rn34
[,ower D elta
_I
79
I Interior P lain
Missls.sipp l
Bluffs
Red Rl\·cr
I
1937 [ 1934 1 1937 [ 1934 1 1937 [ 1934
17
19
I
1937
1934
Arkansas
Ri\.·t r
1
193,
I 1934
OJ)<>rators reportin g sho rt-term credit
lc,,v1·rouwnt. . . .. • . .
M1 •rd urnt
hrtlll,~·r ... .. . .
' :181
9
n
4 t\,")
(Jank .. . . . •• .•• • • •
' :~1
1:1
:,
I ll)~I
~1
111
]
Ji
111
2
I
I
2
20
~1
I
I~
14
I
II
J1 ,n:~r11m ent •. .
-1
31'I 61
:1:,~1
20 1. ar,'l
i,,
2
()
16
6
~
-1
- - -- -- - - - -- -
CJ
11;01
:g_
lo ve rnme nt . . . ... .. . .. .
II. V
16.6
M<·rch ont •. . . • . • . • . • • • _
Fert ill1,ir ... . . .. . . ..
22. g
CJ
Bank .. . . .. . . • .
16.0
0
0
00.
...rv
11. 8
16.0
:MJ. O
15. :1
8. O
42. 5
14 . 0
15. :1
II.
24.
61.
13.
10.
I
34. 2
73. 11
I~, R
8. 0
20.0
26. 3
17. 8
8. 4
12. 0
12. 3
400197,980
12. 1
1
-
12. 0 I
12. 0
20:. I
19~
13. II
13. ~
)6. fi 1
10. 0
11.9
12. 0
10.91
18. 5
18~1
13. 6
10. 7
14. 4
14. g
1
1 A 11111all number of plantations reported current loans or other than the specll'led types.
or 2 plantations reporting Government loans but for which the amollDt or the Joana waa not avB1111ble.
• E1cluslve or 2 plantations reporting merchant loans but for which the amount or the Interest w1111 not available.
• Exclusive or 1 plantation reporting a bank loan but for which the amollDt or the loan was not available.
• Elclualve or 4 plantations reportili1 bank loans but for wbioh the amount or the Interest wu not av&llable.
1 Exclusive
0001s22,
Annua l rah• or lntt•rr.st
..
!i?"
1
$14, 500 $3, 400 1,$24, 000 $4, R1r.l$ 1n.
60II
$1. 11101
$.'!Ool $2. 5'UJ $5, JOOj $113, 9001$2'l,O/i()I
$7,800 $7, 4451
l,Ji70 5.0W 3,000
200
2, 500 R, H J
- $8, 3(Xl
2,000
8,000 I, 9R2
\h!il
I,
100
I. 100
~
-I
2,0. o~ 2:1 . .r,11 20, 3,10 23, 1,;o 17. 9i5 6, 100 11,
47,
$24, 2[,(;
750 2,000 6, 5051 7,000 57, 775 30,800 28, /iOOJ 36, OOO J 15, 600
2'.,:il
~
z
3
r,I
;;oll i1~.l , 4J!'
JrJ•,~II i fi,200
1. onol
$ IU-l. ,,·!.,1$o(!.
ll, \72 ~7.9[d
"'
0
Total amount of loans
:Mt·n· t,ont . . . .
~\•r tl!i,,·r
Bank __ ______ • •.
•
x
~
II
15
27
~
12. 8
10. 6
14. 3
9. 0
16. 6
16. I
16. 0
12. 0
19. 8
I I. 7
12. 0
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES• 87
T.,a.le J.f.-Duration of Subsistence Advances and Annual Rate of Interest, by Area,
1937 and 1934
Total operators
reportilll
11137
11134
Annual rate or
Interest•
Average I duration or
advances (months)
11137
11134
11134
11137
---------------11---- -------- ---- -------All areu ........................ ... .
Atlantlc Coa&t Plaln .......•..••••••......
Black Belt (A) ...............••..•...•....
Black Belt (B) ....•......••.•............
~~~ g:1~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Interior Plain ........•.•.•.....•..........
Misslssippl Bluffs ...................••....
Red River ...••••.•.......•...•.....•....
.Ark&nsas River .......................... .
3.4
3.6
35. 7
3.9
4. 2
3.2
3.1
2.9
3.1
3.9
3.6
3. 4
3.3
3.6
3.1
3.8
3.2
23. 4
'206
-------------1---24
Zl
4.2
4.6
16. 7
211
16
71
7
14
'ZT
12
10
28
16
73
16
17
'ZT
10
11
3. 0
3.0
11.8
37. 6
48.2
40.1
46.6
32. 5
49.8
39.6
16. 7
23.6
22.8
39. 5
49.3
35.1
47. 7
31. 6
71. 6
Arithmetic meen.
• Secured by dh·ldlng Interest paldX12 (months) by amount orloanXduratlon In months.
• Data not available for 1 plantation In the Upper Delta Aree, 8 plantations in the Lower Delta Area, and
1 plantation In the Interior Plain Ares.
• Data not a,·ailable for 1 plantation In the Black Belt (A) Area.
1
Toa.le 15.-Ratio of Prices Received for Cotton and Cottonseed and for All Agricultural
Commodities to Prices Paid for Commodities Bought, 192-4-1938
Ratio of prices received to
prices paid
Year
Cotton and
cot~
All!ll!l'icnltnral
commodltiee
1Q'>5_ --------------------------------------------------------------------
113
1926 ..•.•..••.•••.•.•..•.•.•.•.............•.•.•......•.....•............
1927 _.....•••••.•.•.••...•..•........•.•...........................••....
84
lg21j .••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
118
114
99
94
91
116
1929 ....•.•.•••.•.••..•••...•.•••..•••....•.•.....•..••••••••••••••••.•••
1930. ••·•···•••••·•·•·•·····················•········•••••·••••·•••••••••
1931. ·•·•·•••••••·•·····•·············•···•·············•····••••·•······
1933 .....••.••.••••.•.....•.•.........•.......•.•...••..•••.•...•••••.•..
g4
70
51
44
611
95
pa
70
61
64
1934. ·····································•·•····························
1935. ···•·•·•··•·••••·····•·•······•··•···•·····•••••••·•···•·•··••••·•··
1936 .. ······································•····························
1937 .. ··································•···········•···········•········
1938 .•.•..............•....•.............................•. ········••····
80
81
81
73
57
73
86
92
93
78
1924 ..••• •••••• ••••·•·· ....•........•......••..•.•••. ·······•••••·•·•····
1932 .......••.•...•••.•.............•...•.............•.•..•...•••••..•.•
139
711
Source: Bureau of Al?l'icultural Economi<'S, The AgriruUural SUuation, Vol. .J, No. 4, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., •.\pril 1939, p. i4.
D1q1· zed by
Goog Ie
88 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
To&le 16.-lnvestment per Plantation and per Crop Acre for Land, Buildings, Livestock,
and Machinery, by Area, 1937 and 193-4
Investment per plantation
Total
plantstions
Area
Total
1937 1934
All areas .........
I
Atlantic Coa!t Plain ...
Black Belt (A) .........
Blark Belt (B) .........
l:pper Delta .•.........
Lowrr Delta ...........
Interior Plain ..•.••....
Mississippi Bluffs ...•..
Red River .........•...
Arkansas River ••..•...
1937
Land
1934
IP37
1934
Buildinp
Livestock
1937
1937
1934
Ma~hinery
1934
1937
I 1934
245 1241 $37, ll04 $31,378 $27,874 $23,484 $4,814 $4,366 $2,947 $1,996 $1, 869 ,$1, 532
31
31
16
79
18
17
27
15
11
31
31
14
78
19
17
27
15
9
25,305
19,433
10. 911
55,044
31,318
17,217
31,411
44,845
81,931
16,749
18,147
12,874
43,676
23,261
22,220
24,287
52,855
69, «3
18,948
12,395
7,177
41,184
25,621
12,674
23, 765
31. 4i4
63,524
11,550
12,087
8,649
32,857
18,196
17,139
19. 157
38. 616
56,587
3,318
3, 5.'\8
2,044
7,895
2,8.%
I, 724
2,828
4,0,'\.1
8,395
3,3«
3,247
2,464
6,280
2,455
2,632
2,500
6,729
7,081
l,0531~
860 1, !i3
1,986
2,620
1,302
3,520
1,803
1,772
2.859
5. 5.10,
5,229,
1,310
1,640
1,400
2,332
1,586
1,491
1,708
3. 903
3,082
7.9
6. 41
s.ol
13. 5
11.9
6.4
5. 8
10.3
9.1
12.3
6. 4
7.8
9.0
10.9
5. 3
6.8
6. 7
7. 0
7.4
4. 4
4. 2
4.4
3.6
4. 4
3.4
6. 1
6. 2
8. 4
5.8
3.3
6. 5
2. 7
5. I
4.-l
4. 3
3. 8
$5
$4
4
2
2
4
3
3
5
5
3
4
2
4
4
388
352
2, «5' 2, 207
1,059 1,02-4
1,047
958
1,959
922
3,788 3,607
4,783 2, 6\l3
-Percent distribution
All areas .........
•• -- - -- - - - =
1361
100.0
100. 0
74.3
74.8
31
31
14
78
19
17
27
15
9
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100.0
74. 9
113.8
65.8
74. 9
81. 7
73. 6
75. 7
70. 3
77.6
68.9
66.6
67. 3
75. 2
78. 2
77. 2
78. 9
73.1
81. 5
I-
A tlantlc Cout Plain . ..
Black Belt
Black Belt B .........
Upper Delta ...........
Lower Delta ....... , ...
Interior Plain ..........
Mississippi Bluffs ......
Red River .•......••••.
Arkansas River .•••••••
31
31
16
79
18
17
27
15
II
)Al·········
All areas .........
Atlantic Coast Plain ...
Black Belt (Al····· ....
Black Belt (B _.•......
Upper Delta ...........
Lower Delta ......... __
Interior Plain.---••····
Mississippi Bluffs ......
Red River. .. --········
Arkansas River ........
-- -- --I
245 '241
31
31
16
79
18
17
27
15
11
31
31
14
78
19
17
27
15
9
12.8
13.9
- - 7.8
-=
=13.1 -20.0
18. 3
18. 7
14. 3
9.1
10.0
9.0
9.0
10.2
17. 9
rn. 1
14. 4
10. 6
11.8
10. 3
12. 7
10.2
$75
$58
SM
$10
$10
$6
$.~I
76
69
60
52
81
93
65
62
14
11
10
12
10
8
6
8
5
6
5
5
5
4
5
6
4
4
6
6
68
6
g
13
8
7
8
5
4
79
47
40
35
61
73
50
49
72
64
10
10
8
14
7
4
99
57
36
30
ii
69
32
54
44
45
95
84
43
72
62
87
6. 8
3.9
Investment per crop acre
$79
56
4.9
·= ' =
7
4
5
3
3
7
3
1 Dsta not &vsilsble ror 1 plsntlltlon in the Lower Delta Are&.
1 Data not available for 2 pi,mtntlnns in the Black Belt (B) Area, 1 plantlltlon In the Upper Delta Area,
and 2 plantations in the Arkansas River Area.
Dgit1zedoyGoogle
Table 17.-GroS1 Income From Cash Receipts per Plantation and per Crop Acre,
All areas
Item
1937
---
I 1934
246
4771
417
by Source of Income and Area, 1937 and 1934
Atlantic
Coa.st Plain
Black Belt
(A)
Black Belt
(B)
Upper Delta
Lower
Delta
Interior
Plain
193711934
19371 1934
19371 1934
1937 11934
19371 1934
1937111134
31
31
16
711
111
17
~
3501
303
2431
249
ml
542
3731
249
3971
Mississippi
Bluffs
I
1937
11134
Red River
1937 111134
4341
River
11137
15
'n
340
Arkansas
3112
7181
I 1934
-
11
535
11401
880
Gross Income from CBl!h receipts per plantation
-- $13,679 $9,974 $8,928 $6,887 $5, /lll7 $4,800 $3, l'n $4, 237 $21,326 $14,474 $7,fflr.l $5,124 $6,242 $5, 775 $12,804 $8,844 $20,766 $15,088 $24,665 $19,748
--
---
--
-----
-----
--
See footnotes at end of table.
0
[O
~ro
Cl.
c::r
'<
()
0
~
,._
n
--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
-------- --
7,437 3,171 2,732 3,042 2,828 2,364 3, 'n8 18,524 II, 667 6,200 3,724 -1,837 4,145 10,797 7, 197 16,219 11, 4114 18,976 15,002
5,897 2,700 2,268 2,597 2,350 2,128 2,689 15,090 9,117 5,462 2,897 3,863 3, 'n6 8,520 5,695 13, 113 9,181 15,938 12.1117
1,540
375
445
2:111
5811 3,434 2,MO
41H
478
744
827
974
869 2,277 1,502 3,106 2,313 3,038 2,985
I, 123
682
605
404
4112
346
399 1,403 I, 594
575 1,082
905 1,633
606
1168 2,451 I, 711 4,231 2,882
189
161
108
165
7
24
308
314
1?6
197
121
239
100
48
367
13
267
168
122
17
113
88
87
3
Ill
184
169
100
47
2311
176
197
225
9
65
44
22
20
78
4
5
145
120
1
89
13
62
159
2
100
6
4
205
53
716 4,646 3,236 I, 181 1,029
177
118
21
12
128
509
466
37
21
15
226
171
726
554
778
681
194
465 3, 8.19 2, 2.17
241
7 21
• 466
t 509
I 21
112
I 31
I 15
1226
RO I 253 I 201 2 261 t 207 '177 • 118
• 128
196
230
104
775
215
161
320
79
480
437
39
ft9 1,1131 I, 616
298
150
142
7911
86
279
70
811
140
262
354
380
424
112
413
159
57
72
222
44
98
233
380
482
125
36
18
47
51
124
325
53
28
00
183
303
262
63
46
16
125
154
211
121
42
53
311
liO
25
311
230
65
112
1511
151
98
334
44
170
486
10,721
8,800
1,921
1, 23;
194
113
55
26
914
161
672
81
435
178
-
-
-
---
--
-
-
-
----
---
---
-
-
-
en
C
::g
,,,
,,,~
r-
z
>
-<
;o
-4
>
r,,,en
•
00
a,
,0
Table 17.-Gross Income From Cash Receipts per P!antation and per Crop Acre, by Source of Income and Area, 1937 and 1934---Continued
ICoast
.-1. tlanttc I Illack Belt mack Belt
!'lain
( ..\)
;
(B)
I
All an-as
~~~j
Item
1m
I
11134
! 11131 ! 11134 . ~m I 11134
Upl)('r Oelta
11137
i
11134
Lower
Delta
I
Interior
Plain
I 1m j 1934 i 11131 I11134
Mississippi
Bluffs
1m
j 11134
Red RI
1m
j
Arkansu
River
v~r
11134
I
11137
I
Cotton ...... ... ........• . . . ..........
.-I.AA payments . . . ...... . ..............
Feed sales . . . . • .......... _.... . ......
Other crop sales . .. . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . .
Liwstock products sal'-"" .. ... .. ... . . ...
Other rt>cc,ipts . . ... . . . . .. . . . .. . . . ... . .
Gross Income per crop
0
F..
<U
C.
c::
'<
C")
0
~
rv
i8.4
9.0
I. 4
6. 7
3. 2
I. 3
74.5
11.3
I. 9
7. 2
2. 3
2. 8
35. 5
6.5
I. 8
52. I
3. 3
0. 8
====1=1= I\Cre
.•• . . •. •• • .
$291
$241
S27
39.6
8. 8
I. 8
47. 0
I. 5
I. 3
-
$28]
54. 7
7.3
I. 9
21. 2
13. Q
I. 0
I
$16,
58.1
10.1
3. 4
21. 1
4. 4
2. Q
St6
75.6
11.1
0. 2
5. 7
5. 1
2. 3
77.4
9.4
0. 6
2. 8
4. 6
5. 2
86. 9
6. 6
I. 4
2. 4
I. 5
I. 2
100.0 100.ol 100.01100.0 100.0
80. 7
11.0
2. 2
3. 2
0. 5
2. 4
80.7
7.9
0. 3
6. 2
4. 9
72.7
11.2
4. 7
0. 2
2. 9
8. 3
1
-a
z►
....
►
::1
77.5
17.3
I. 6
0. 6
2. 3
0. 7
11.8
15.7
0. 8
2. 2
7. 6
I. g
100.0 100.0
114.3
n .8
1. 4
0. 3
I. 2
81.4
10. Q
2. 2
0. 8
4. 7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
78.0
11.8
1. 8
7. 9
0. 5
76.3
11.3
0. I
0. 1
10. 7
I. 5
76.9
17.2
I. 1
0. 1
3. 2
I. 5
80.6
14.6
0. 9
1. 1
0. 4
2. 4
-$13
- -$17- -=
--$16- -$17- =S23=$29= =
=
=
$37
$27
$21
$21
S30
$28
$26
m
Major sourc'('s : Wheat, sweet potatoes. and soyhean,, and watennolona In 1934.
2 !\laj·or sourr t'S : Pre-ans, ye~et.nhl('S, orchard, and suJnU' caoe.
a :M a t1r sources : \\' heat, oowJ)Cf\.."\ for set·d, and soyhean~.
• Maj·or so1irc-.•s: Pecans, e<'rtlfic.J sc,•,1, and cow peas lor -1.
• 1'.f n or sourc-es: J>4.•cnns and n'j:!t•tahlt~.
• Mnjor sources: Cowpeas for seed and or~hard, and strawbl'rrlcs In 11134.
111njor sour(:() : Cowpcn.c; ror seed .
• Mn or sources : Cowpea.11 lor seed and pecans.
1
'g
100.0 100.0 100. 0 100.0\ 100. 0!_100.o\ 100.0l 100.oJ 100.0
•
~
ITI
r
11134
Pfiroent dlstrlbutlon
Total . ...........................
8
0
z
lS
~
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES • 91
To&le 18.-Gross Income for the One-Fourth of the Plantations in Each Area With the
Highest and the Lowest Gross Income per Plantation, by Area, 1937 and 1934
Total
plantatlons
in
AIM
each
1937
and
A tlantlc Coast Plain __________
Black Belt )A)_ _______________
Black Belt B)_ _______________
Upper Delta ___________________
Lower Delta ___________________
Interior Plain ... ______________
Mississippi Bluffs _____________
Red River _____________________
Arkansas River ________________
Per plantation
income
group
19-;4
Allareaa _________________
Gross Income for one-fourth or
~lantatlons In each area with
ighest gross Income per plantation
---
II
I
f Percrop
acre
Per f.lanta-1
t
OD
Per
family
I
' _ _ _ ,_ _ _ _ _ I_ _ _
1931 I, 1937 I 1931 193, I1934:I 1v31
1937
1
I
Percrop
acre
-1-
1931 11137 11134 11137111134
_ _f_
63 '$30, IM $21,322 $982 $707 $31 $27 $3, 715 $2, 9151$548 $395 $21 $1&
i==========
8117, 305 13, 268 1, 610 1, 516
8 11. 398 9. 904 786 800
4! 5,489 7,432 , M9 803
~··41 1u~~i
~:}~i'·~
17. 2,59' 11, 6271 842
31. 940 22. ,;oG 1,012
4 I 52,268 31.93~( 310
3 ' 48, 211 41, 084 742
;
I
t
Per
I family•
Gross Income for one-fourth or
r,iantations In each area with
owest gross Income per
plantation
~~.
;o5!
ozil
824
611
41
16
18
42
29,
21:
38
351
211
49
19
21
29
2,523
1,915
1,264
6,255
28
794
19; 1,340
261 1, 711
3115. 168
21 8,805
2.049;
l. 568,
1, 652!
4,193
746,
I. 7~9
I. 605
5. 3lt\
6,
9-531
360
374
241
831
132
31 o,
319
267
U5
Ml
113
298
3211
Ml 5191
660 372
35:1
10
13
13
32
13
13
101
20
311
11
10
g
u
7
13
13
18
19
Excludee reeident families without. crops.
210973"--40---8
o ;i111•ed by
Google
,0
t>O
Ta&/e 19.-Current Expenses per Plantation, by Area, 1937 and 1934
I
Atla n t ic
Black Belt
C'oast Plnin
( A)
All rm •as
I Blnck( B)Bolt
lh>.tll
1n~T~~]
'I'olul plnntat Ions __
~4fi
Curren t <' lpP OS('~ p<'r planta tion
Cotton p ic ·kin~ - - - -
Tenant oret:L...·•donnl
M ise<•llam'Ous
Rf•pairs __ _ .
. . . . ..
Dwdllng _ _
_
- - ----- • • - - B •
-·- --- -- -~ ---·
___ ______ ___ _
___ __ _
Barn 1'i , r<·nccs. rrnd lmpl1·11wnt.s
Fee.tror li,·eslock
Vt>t Prirrnry fet1's
. •. • __
• ______ _____ _
--- ---·····
Bt'e<1 • . • . . ..
--- -- - - --- - - --- - - - -- - ---- ---T ro.c tor P:tpenses . __ _. _. • . __ . _. . . _. _. . .. . .
Cl
[~t
r:.i
(ll
Cl.
er
"<
F••rl illz.-r . . _... . __. __ .. .. __. . .... _. . .. . . _.
" 'ngrcrops . . . ·- · - · · · · · ·· · ----- -- -- -· · ··
TPnant cropg . . .
P olson fo r pest control
( lin n ing . . .
.
.. ... . .. .... ... . .. __
Rent. ·· · · ··· - ---· ---- - · ·· - ·- --- - -- -- -- -- Real "state . •.• . _. . •. • . • .. -- · __ . ___ .... . .. __ .
l usu rnnce
·ra,:e~ ______
_. . .. . _____
. ... . ._. ... . --- --------- - .. .
C")
lntere! t
0
0
C u rrt"nt r. xpe,nMis pPr rrop acre
00
~
rv
Mis<'<'llanrous __ ___ _• .
• lncludea uonrealdent labonn.
I~ '
~; , °'. WI $-1 , 28.\ ~
l.nhnr __ ___ __•. _______ _ .
l{cg uhlr waiz:r· labon.· rs 1 · · · · - -- -- ·Hrasrmal wage• lahnrcrs . . _. __ _. . . . . . . .
Colton chopping _
2,11',r.•
11.',~
I. 11:17
l~'O
917
:~H
107
,1\)7
21f,
~,;,2
86
21
137
IY7
rm
242
39r,
19
I, Oft[,
30t,
m,.~
11 9
48fl
211
~
$131
1937 1 193-4
1.:1rnl
1\31
1937 1 ~934
31
I
1937
1034
16
79
22fi
70
85
II
HI
59
21!(1
191
166
tl6
342
310
121
11 0
221
200
213
41
16
19
129
l:.!l!
130
42
435 1. 121
362
13.1
302
759
C.91
Ml
234
292
9-1
f. 13
322
100
119
,'>07
223
122
11 8
.'>I
6
fi41
454
97
38
59
40
50
197
82
I I~
29
10
20
42
94 7
27fi
f.71
145
130
234
31
~'03
43
-
1-11
467
140
16
124
75
65
228
119
109
65
12
74
32
723
25!!
465
231
76
68
217
60
119
171
197
96
101
90
9
48
16
r,1 3
192
321
4
2\IS
f,2
175
31
144
69
45
$10
$10
$8
$7
$10
2&~
12:1
385
IOI
22
79
6f,
484
:12'1
10
2
8
113
39
378
102
276
M
3
45
2
AAO
316
.11-1
:!tl l
43
19
24
61
49
156
106
50
Sil
41
lll
57
-
I
76
4
8.~2
327
.~25
2.55
123
114
33
81
51
1
$ll
$ll
r.(;4
142
12
l .'\ 2
1;
$17
Plain
~ 937 1 1934
19
4:
$12
17
~~r t 2,
:i,749 2_rn4
1. 041\
7\)\1
2, 215
37~
234
159
1,9.'l l
219
310
621
178
216
805
514
405
170
3-10
344
11 2
339
31
19
17,5
240
J IY
238
60'<
331
2,54
8i
3M
24 4
51
174
I, 93.~
873
4fH
439
939 1. 021
161
21 8
778
R0.1
304
157
I
44 _
M is.s isslp p i
nt utTs
Interior
0~-
1937 1 rn~~ ~937
-----=;: $2, 1)52 $2, 24U $ ~ . ~ ~1~
8\18
f,71
Lowrr
Delta
\;~Ft:
1934
27
1937
•
Ar kansas
R iver
-4
::c
m
I ~I
1934
15
1; ~
-0
r
)>
z
11
-4
)>
3(Jt
$2,297 $4 , 78 1 $3, f,t;2 ~ $ 8. 2581$10, 2112 $7, 2S8
~>14
364
451
105
346
17
152
269
7~
191
11 8
14
81
72
192
:JO
H\2
5
670
10
432
98
334
143
__
319
179
97
39
68
13
30
140
51
89
47
5
21
41
87
3
!14
5
248
7
404
52
P,5
909
442
211-1
36
258
173
99
6.1
36
31
6
911
30
222
14i
75
556
fi2
20-1
2:1
18 1
91
-
$8
$6
$6
48
3.',6
I
1931
Ite,J Ri\·er
1\00 t, 46 1
226
303
14
899
7
79
7
820
3.'13
228
16
31
347
224
IOI
78
246
146
239
4
12
3
61
87
16
15\
213
939
66
329
147
610
4
1.1
205 I, 007
132
37
28 1
617
30
R3
~51
534
20
18.1
59 _ - _
$7
$11
74~
393
232
71
161
4,4t.O
751
I, 707
270
1,437
! Oil
I, 84fl
14
15fo
247
943
t4fi
27
IO I
916
08
23
64
102
169
51
548
451
ITT
17
107
43-1
70
91
009 I, 492
2'25 2. 00.1
579
72S
67
133
512
592
321
l f,4
47 __
3.0M
I , 543
319
77
242
247
945
587
142
478
45
210
289
222
222
33
765
I, 130
1,046
103
1143
134
275
3,396
706
926
145
781
I, 632
132
793
207
586
468
:15
455
6 19
111
168
13
24
I, 727
82
1,202
379
913
245
9M
I , 030
334
1,088
149
939
109
8
$15
$ 11
$8
44 5
-1
$91
$151
2, !'44
I. 766
513
203
310
605
60
440
39
401
611
13
100
409
11 2
112
:::!
0
z
0C
:c
Table JO.-Financial Summary I per Plantation and per Crop Acre, by Area, 1937 and 193-4
All acres
Item
193711934
Total plantations __ . _______
Crop acres per plantation. __
Atlantic
Coast Plain
Black Belt
(A)
Black Belt
(B)
I
193711934
11137
11137
246
4771
IIIM
31
417
331
I
31
"3
360
I
I
Upper Delta
1113t
1937
~1
1113t
79
16
303
I
HI
ml
Lower Delta Interior Plain
1937 11934
11137
ml
lllat
17
111
612
I
HI
·I
MO
MIMbsippl
Biuffa
Red River
193711934
11137119M
'¥1
16
~1
8112
718
Arkansu
River
11187
I
lllat
11
1136
MO
I
880
Financial aummary per plantation
Investment . . __ ____ __ ------ $37,604 $31,378 $25,305 $16, 749 $19,433 $18, H7 $10,911 $12,874 $55, 044 $43,676 $31,318 $23,261 $17,217 $22,Dl $31,411 $24,287 $44,845 $62,8.55 SSl, 1131 $611,443
Gross cash income _________ 13,679 9,974 8, ll28
5, flJ7 4,809 3,127 4,237 21, 326 14,474 7,693 ll, 1:U II, 242 ll, 775 12,804 8,844 20,766 15,088 34,665 19,746
Current expenses __________ 6,006 4,285 3,339 6,887
2,438 2,052 2,249 2,209 2,233 9,586 6,403 2,990 1,471 2,301 2,297 4,784 3,502 10, 745 8,258 10,262 7, 288
Net ca.sh Income ___________ 7,673 5,089 5,689 4,449
918 2,004 11,740 8,071 4,703 3,663 8,941 8,478 8,fW
2,915 2,MJ
ll, 282 10,021
6,830 14,403 12,458
Financial IWDJDar7 per crop acre
Investment. ____ ___________
Gross rash income _______ __
Current expt•nses . . _______ .
Net cash income ___________
I
0
cg:
fu
CD
C.
0-
'<
CJ
0
0
00
$79
29
13
16
$75
24
10
14
Based OD appendix tables 1, 16, 17, and 19.
$76
$69
$50
27
28
10
18
16
8
8
10
17
$00
16
i
$45
13
9
4
~
II
8
$95
37
17
20
$81
27
12
15
$84
21
8
13
9113
21
6
16
$43
16
II
10
$65
17
1i
$72
$62
$62
30
23
29
11
18
9
13
15
H
-:
15
13
1117
26
11
15
$79
22
8
H
i
~m
~
"'-<
>
ra,
~
•
,0
w
94 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
Tal,le .21.-0perator's Gross Cash Income From Cash Receipts per Plantation, by Area
and Source of Income, 1937 and 193-4
Ol'Ol!!I CMh Income per plantation
Tot&!
plRnta•
tloos
All erees:
1937 ____ ..••••••••••••••••••••..
1934 __ ··•······················-
Atlantic COll8t Plain:
AAA !Livestock Other
payments pr~~cts receipts 1
$8,328
5,008
111,882
4,4:;,J
$8.13
979
$135
230
S178
279
--- --- ------=
1937 _. ___ • ___ . __ . ___ .••.••••••••••••••
1934.·-------·-·---···················
31
31
4,837
4,257
4,082
3,570
387
2118
494
10(
70
811
19.17 .•• _---···- •••••••••••••••••••• •••
19:H .. -···-···························
31
31
3, 4r,
3,219
2,286
2,425
309
4311
715
215
57
140
l937 ....•...•...•.••••.•...•...•..•••.
16
16
2,130
3,007
1,645
2,226
2-~2
364
1ft1
72
222
19.17 -- ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
1934 .. -....••••••••••...••••••••••••••
79
79
12,009
8,140
11,317
6,332
1,010
1,375
m
79
354
1937.·-··•·••·························
1934 .......••••••••••••••••.•••••.••••
19
111
4, .V.7
2,970
3,219
1,862
488
480
5:H
150
380
424
19.17 .•••.• _•• •••••••••••••••••••••••••
1934 ......... ··••••••••••••••••••••·•
17
17
3,M9
3,526
2. 875
2, 176
598
80'l
142
437
44
112
1037 ... _...... - ...••••.•••••••••••••••
1934 .........••••••••••••••••••••••••
r,
r,
7,596
4,624
6,372
3,327
1,026
815
39
1111
1511
413
15
15
14, 271)
10,539
10,890
7,135
1,660
1,555
1,631
1,616
98
233
11
11
17,208
12, 791
13,308
9,615
2, 724
2,608
796
380
Black Belt (A):
Black Belt (B):
11134. -·-··••··························
Upper
Delta:
Lower Delta:
Interior Plain:
MLs.•is.•ippl Bluffll:
Red River:
I0:<7 ... ···•·••••••••••••••·••••••·•••·
10:H ··-··•···························
Arlrn11sas River:
1937 .... _... _.•.•.........•.••.••••••
lll34._ .. --····-·······················
1
246
246
l===I
Crop
sales
Total
l!IG
262
482
86
Cash rent, Interest, comml8"lom, and mlsrellaneollll.
Tal,le 22.-0perator's Net Cash Gain or Loss per Plantation, 1937 and 193-4
Xet cs.sh pin or loss
per plantation
Total plantations
Net caah Kain or loss
11134
1937
Total---·······································-·
Loss ---------··-·······-····························$/\00 or more .... ·····-·····-········-·············Less than $500.. .. ... .• • .•••••••••••.•.•...•.. .••••
• 245
246
t------1----:;,J
18
7
11
-144
$2,!XJ0-$2,·19\l ...•• _•• ••• •• .• . ••••.. •••. •••••••• •••••
$2,f,OO $4,\l<J9_ .• _•• _••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ___
12
226
24
32
19
17
21
45
$5,000 or more .. ·····-·····-·-···-···-············-
67
37
0 grt1zed by
Goos le
Gain ... ··································-···-·-·····
L<-,s., thon $500...... ... . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . •.. . . •. • .
$[,00-$91l\l .. -- ... -··-··•- ••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••
$1,()(()-$1.4119 .. ········-····························
$1,500-$1,!l!lll. ··••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
1
8
$2,528
-741
-1,636
228
2ll
43
23
22
23
51
4,331
200
759
1,211
1,574
2,163
3,574
10,268
Data not available for 1 plantation In the Upper Delta Area.
-468
-Sf,9
-212
2, 9\lfl
323
703
1,202
], 676
2,221
3, ,lf,3
9,3fi2
TafJ#e 13.-0perator's financial Sumrnary 1 per Plantation and per Crop Acre, by Area, 1937 and 1934
Blar k Belt
Atlantic
(A)
Coast Plain
All areaa
Item
Total plantation• . ___ __ _______ ___ ___ ____ . .
Crop acroa per plantation. _____ __ ___ __ .
11137111134
I 1137111134
248
31
4771
417
111C17
I
11134
31
Black Belt
(B)
i~,:
193711034
l11C17111134
16
79
~i~ ~
6791
Interior
Lower
Delta
Plain
11137111134 ~ 9 3 4
11
19
642!~
3971
Mississippi
Bluffs
Red River
1113711934
111C17
a.I
11137
1934
16
27
340
I
ArkanlU
River
392
7181
j
1111M
11
a:IS
9401
880
Financial summary pe,- plantation
m,ta.
1
Oroso cash Income ______ __ ____ _______ _.. .
s261S7, !511611-t. 8241'''- mlS10, 6391•11, nls12. 791
14011-t. 5111112. wrols:i,
2191sz 1:io s:i. 0011112,
2.\1js:i.
'8.
7,743 9,382 8,382
J, 154, I, 889 1,968 3,472 2, '.Xl4 9, 1181
, 894 7, 2931 4, 8621 2,
91511
1,
1,786
0-10
2.
087
2,
2,931
380i
4.
.
..
.
.
-···-----_---·
~~pen"""
Current
Net cash Income ______________ __ ___ ___ . . . . 3,500 2,528 I, 006 2, 1701 I, 378 1,433
2, al 4. 598 2, 798 7, 82jl 8, 40II
215 I, 113 15,616 3,378 2,422 I, 816 I, 770 I, Mil 4.
328115. 0()81k 8371'-t.
i3813,
909Jss.
M9,S3,
14~1
124
Financial 1UD1mary per cror a,re
Or= cash Income_- ---·---- - --···· · · - · ·-_
·-·__····
· -·-. . . --···-w enscs________
teincome
Currcn
. . . ..
__ ___
____--___
cash
Net
$181
10
8
I Baaed on table 25 and appendli tables 1 and 21,
•1:I
111
•1:I Sl!I
'
' :I ' ii ,1 ' :!
I
13
·~1
10
'':I ·'=I ''ii
,1
•1:I
$1=1
10
$1~
.,~
13
SIDI
14
a
$181
10
8
S14
7
7
I
~
!
0
0.
,!l
L)
0
~,_..
fv
~
m
►
'c;
•
'°
UI
96 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
Tol,le 24.-Net Cash Income from Crops
I per Tenant Family I and Percent of Total
Plantation Crop Acres in Cotton, 1937 and 193-4
Percent of crop IICffll In rotton
Total
plsnt:1tions 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
reportin::
Less than30 1 30-411
~
70 or more
I
Net cash lnrome per tenant family
_____________
1
_1ro_1 '._1ro_4 _1ro_1 1_1934
_ _193_1 _1934_:_100_; _1934_;_1937_1_1_m_4_
1
Total.. ..................•...•...
1
58 1
1119
224
1
21
29
3.1
38
22
36
12
7
2
19
37
54
44
32
13
6
17
1
16
13
10
7
4
2
4
1
Median inrome ........•............... $'.Ul
~
$146
y,..,., thftn $50...........................
$.',0·$99 ···················•············
t100·$149..............................
$1•,0.,100 .....................•... .
$2(0-$~49 ...••..••...•••.•.••.•.•...•..
$2.',0 ~2'19 .. •.•...•....•.••••.••••....
S:ll)()-$'.i'!!I. ........ . ..............•..
$400-$-l'l\l
.....................•.... .
$[i()Oor more...........................
711
89
96
13
4
2
1
7
17
24
20
14
6
5
2
$198
$221
$198
1·
I
j
10
13
5
13
16
12
8
5
I
171
23
9
16
I
47:
41
-
2
7
12
-1
3
5 '
5 1
I
5
8
2
3
3
g
I
17
7
2
g
4
4
2
1
-
-
I $309 I $198 $2261
$233
1 Excludr,s plantations on which 50 IJ('rcent or more of the gross cash inrome lrom crop !Illes was derl,ed
from tobacco and/or peanut~.
1 CropJl('r anrl ~hnrr t('nant familiM only.
• 1':xdudes plantations o!J('rakd hy wage laborers only.
• Dlita not av ..ilable !or 2 J•lantations.
To&le 25.-Reasons of Out-of-School Negro Children for Not Being in School
Reason
Number
1
Percent
Total .........•.............................•...........•..............
'1,540
100.0
Distance ..................................•.................................
WorkinK _.............................•............................. •·······
Oradi, rompletcd ....................•.......................................
Lack ol hooks .............................................................. .
J,ack ol clot hrs ...................................................•.••.......
Prrsonal il1111,ss_ ...........••...............................................•
Pnr<•nts' illness ...........•.............•.......... . .........................
Married_ ................................................................. .
lnrliffnrnce .. _.................................•...............••..••.•....
Physical handirnp .............................. ····················-·····-Olher ...........................................•..•..................•......
103
797
51. 7
6. 7
108
43
7.0
109
7.1
2.8
43
2. 8
1
0.1
45
2. g
101
17
173
6.6
I.I
ll.2
•·rum a study marle in 28 counties in 6 Southern States.
• Median age-14.2 years.
Boun,i: <'alh·rr, Amhrosr, Arni/nl1i/ity of Erlwnlirm lo Negro,, In Rural Commr,ni/ie,, Bulletin, 1935, No.
12, U. B. Department or the Interior, Office ol Education, Washington, D. C., 1113d, p. 17.
1
D1gi: led by
Google
SUPPLEMENT ARY TABLES • 97
Tal,le 26.-Volumes per Capita in Public Libraries and Percent of Rural Population
Residing in Local Public Library Districts in 12 Southern States, 1934
State
Volumes per
capita in
public
libraries 1
Alabama _______________________________________________________________ _
Arkansas _______________________________________________________________ _
Ocor!'iB _____________________________________ ____________________________ _
0.16
0.10
0.19
0.25
0. 19
0.10
0. 20
0. 32
0. 12
0. 29
0. 23
0.67
t,~i~~~::--_:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Missis.sippL. __________________________________________________________ _
North Carolina _________________________________________________________ _
Oklahoma
__________________________________________________________ _
South Carolina. _________________________ -- _____________________________ _
T<.•nnessee __. ______ . ____________ . _____________________ . _________________ _
Tf'X!lS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------Viri,inia.
______________ ---- ________________________ ----- ________________ _
1
1
Percent of rural
population
residin~ in
local public
library
districts •
15.4
2.9
8. 7
16. 3
12. 3
25.1
30.3
3. 3
2t. 9
16.8
7.1
7.6
United States \"olume, per capita (including District of Columbia)-0.82.
Cnited States percent-11.t.
Source: Wilson, Louis R .• Tht Gtoqraphv of &adlnq, American Library Association and The University
of Chicngo Press, Chicago, Ill., 1938, pp. 28 and 48.
Tal,le 27.-Circulation of 47 National Magazines, 1931, and of 42 Farm Publications,
1928, per 1,000 Population
State
Alabama _______________________________________________________________ _
Arkansas _______________________________________________________________ _
Georgia _________________________________________________________________ _
ri~~!~i~~-_::::=::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
North Carolina. ________________________________________________________ _
Oklahoma_ _ __________________________________________________________ _
SouthCarollna _________________________________________________________ _
T(•nnt~ssee. ______________ -----. ------ ······------------ ----- _------. ----TPXRQ -- --- - - - - -- - ----- -------- - --- -------------- ------------- ------- ----
Virginia _________________ -------------------------------- __ ------------ --
Cirrulation
or 47 national
magazines
per 1,000
population,
19311
124
136
141
166
150
101
138
222
114
174
225
204
Clrrulatlon
of 42 farm
publications
per 1.000
population,
19281
86.1
108.2
82.1
00. 2
5i. 5
104. 0
!OS. 0
148. 3
82. 0
84. 5
98.0
115. 1
• United States circulation per 1,000 population (inrlu<lin~ District or Columhla)-312.
• United Rtates circulation per 1,000 population (including District of Columhia)-104.7.
Source: Wilson, Louis R., TIit Gtographp of R,adino,Amorlcan Library A!ISOCiatlonand The Unlversit7
of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill., 1938, pp. 230 and 234.
Dg1111edovGoogle
D Ill ed
vGoogle
Appendix B
LIST OF TABLES
TEXT TABLES
Table
Page
1. Plantations enumerated, by area, 1937 and 1934_ __ __ __ __ __ ___ _ __ _
xn
2. Operators with other occupations, by area, 1937 and 1934___________
2
3. Resident and absentee operators, by area, 1937 and 1934__________
2
4. Organization of land per plantation, by area, 1937 and 1934________
4
5. Organization of cropland per plantation, 1937 and 1934_ ___ _________
15
6. Organization of cropland per plantation, by tenure and area, 1937
and 1934____________________________________________________
6
7. Plantation livestock, by area, 1937 and 1934. ____________ . ________
10
13
8. Resident families per plantation, by area and type, 1937 and 1934_ ___
9. Color of tenants on plantationA, by area, 1937 and 1934_____ ______ __
115
10. Cotton acreage chopped or picked by off-plantation labor, by area
and tenure of operator, 1937 __________________________ ·--- ____
16
11. Power per plantation and per 1,000 acres of cropland, by area, 1937
and 1934____________________________________________________
17
18
12. Type of power used on plantations, by area, 1937 ________ __________
13. Number of tractors per plantation, by area, 1937 _ _ _ _ ______________
19
14. Factors retarding mechanization as reported by operators, 1937 ____
20
15. Operators' long-term debts, by type, 1937 and 1934_ _ _________ ____ _
24
16. Operators' short-term credit, by type, amount, and duration of loan
and annual rate of interest, 1937 and 1934_ ______________ _ . ____
25
17. Operators' short-term credit, by number of resident families, 1937
and 1934____________________________________________________
26
18. Practice of operators in granting subsiAtence advances, by area, 1937
and 1934____________________________________________________
28
19. Invel!tment per plantation and per crop acre for land, buildings, livestock, and machinery, 1937 and 1934__________________________
30
20. Gross income from cash receipts per plantation, by source of income,
1937 and 1934 ______________________________________ . __ . _____
31
21. Gross inr.ome for the one-fourth of the plantations in each area with
the highest and lowest gross income per plantation, 1937 and 1934_ _
33
22. Current expenseA per plantation, 1937 and 1934 ___________________ 34
23. Net cash income per plantation and per crop acre, by area, 1937 and
1934_____________________________________________________ _
36
99
D191: led by
G oog 1e
100 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
Table
Page
24. Operator's groBB cash income from cash receipts per plantation, by
source of income, 1937 and 1934_ _ _ _ ___ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ ____ _ __ __ __
25. Operator's current expenses per plantation, by area, 1937 and 1934_ _ _
26. Operator's net cash income per plantation, by area, 1937 and 1934_ _
27. Net income per tenant family, hy area, 1937 and 1934______________
28. Net cash income per cropper family, by area, 1937 and 1934_________
29. Change.~ in farm population and in farm operators in Southern regions,
1930 to 1935________________________________________________
30 Changes in farm operators in Southern cotton regions, by tenure, 1930
to 1935 _______________ -- ___ --- ____ ---- _ -- _ ----------- __ ---- __
31. Federal aid per capita, January 1933--March 1938__________________
32. Householcl1, receiving public assistance in the South, November 1933November 1938_____ __ __ _ __ ____ ___ _ _ __ _____ _____ __ ______ _____
33. Food consumption of low-income rural families in 5 Southern counties,
Jan11ary-Morc-h 1939__ __ __ ______ __ ___ _ ____ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ ________ _
34. Plumbing facilities reported by white farm operator families in 8
counties in North Carolina and South Carolina, by income, 1935-36_
35. School attainment of heads of open country families in the Eastern
Cotton Area receiving general relief, by color, October 1935_ __ _ _ __
36. Percent of the open country general relief population 7 through 17 years
of age in the Eastern Cotton Area attending school, by color,
October 1935________________________________________________
37. Negro rural children who are over-age for their grade, by distance to
school______________________________________________________
38. Farms in 12 Southern States receiving central-station service, June
30, 1939____________________________________________________
40
41
41
44
45
49
49
52
53
57
59
65
65
66
68
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Crop acres per plantation, by area, 1934--1938_____________________
Crop acreR on plantationR, by area, 1937 and 1934_________________
Organization of c-ropland per plantation, by area, 1937 and 1934_ _ _ __
Cotton acreage on plantations, by area, 1937 and 1934_____ __ ___ _ __ _
Yield of lint cotton per ac-re, by type of tenants and area, 1937 and
1934_______________________________________________________
Resident families on plantations, by area and type, 1934-1938_______
Type of tenants on plantations, by area, 1937 and 1934_____________
Resident families per 1,000 acres of cropland, by area and type,
1937 and 1934_______________________________________________
Type of off-plantation labor, transportation arrangements, and average
miles traveled, by area, 1937_______________________________ ___
C'rnp acres h9.ndled by tractors and work stock, by area and operation,
1937_______________________________________________________
Operators' long-term debts, by type and area, 1937 and 1934_ _ _ __ _ _ _
Plantation mortgages, by annual rate of interest and type of loan,
1937 and 1934_______________________________________________
Operators' short-term credit, by type and amount of loans, annual
rate of interest, and area, 1937 and 1934________________________
Duration of subsistence advances and annual rate of interest, by area
1937 and 1934_______________________________________________
Ratio of prices received for cotton and cottonseed and for all agricultural commodities to prices paid for commodities bought, 1924--1938_
D git,zed by
Goos le
79
79
80
81
81
81
83
83
84
84
85
85
86
87
87
LIST OF TABLES • 101
Table
Page
16. Investment per plantation s.nd per crop acre for land, buildings, livestock, and machinery, by area, 1937 and 1934___________________
88
17. GroBB income from cash receipts per plantation and per crop acre, by
source of income and area, 1937 and 1934_______________________
89
18. GroBB income for the one-fourth of the plantations in each area with
the highest and the lowest gross income per plantation, by area,
1937 and 1934_______________________________________________
91
19. Current expenses per plantation, by area, 1937 and 1934____________
92
20. Financial summary per plantation and per crop acre, by area, 1937
and 1934____________________________________________________
93
21. Operator's gross cash income from cash receipts per plantation, by
area and source of income, 1937 and 1934_______________________
94
94
22. Operator's net cash gain or loss per plantation, 1937 and 1934_______
23. Operator's financial summary per plantation and per crop acre, by
area, 1937 and 1934_ __ __ ____ __________ ________ __________ ___ __
95
24. Net cash income from crops per tenant family and percent of total
plantation crop acres in cotton, 1937 and 1934___________________
25. Reasons of out-of-school Negro children for not being in school______
26. Volumes per ca.pita in public libraries and percent of rural population
residing in local public library districts in 12 Southern States, 1934__
27. Circulation of 47 national magazines, 1931, and of 42 farm publications, 1928, per 1,000 population_______________________________
0191• 2P.d by
96
96
97
97
G oog1e
01 I
l.edlyGoogle
Appendix C
METHOD AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY
IN
ORDER to analy~e recent changes in the organization and operation of the plantations in the Eastern Cott.on Area for which the 1934
operations were surveyed,1 a restudy was made based on plantation
operations for the crop year 1937 and the current situation at the time
of the field enumeration during the summer of 1938. In this resurvey
special emphasis was placed on changes in labor force and in mechanization. A total of 320 plantations scattered through 31 counties
of Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and North Carolina
was enumerated (table A). Alabama, included in 1934, was completely omitted in 1937 for the reason that its principal farming
areas are similar to those sampled in Georgia and Mississippi. For
purposes of analysis 246 plantations, surveyed as of both years, were
utilized.
The definition of a plantation in both studies is a tract owned or
leased by one individual or corporation and operated under one
management by five or more families, including that of the resident landlord. This conforms in general to the definition adopted
in the 1910 Census,2 when the last comprehensive enumeration of
plantations was made.
The sample was classified into nine areas which conformed to the
areas delimited in the earlier survey after the elimination of the
Upper Piedmont and Muscle Shoals Areas. These two areas were
omitted as the resurvey was deliberately weighted toward areas in
which mechanization is becoming a more or less significant fact.or.
The eliminations also weight the 1937 sample somewhat toward the
larger plantations with high per acre yields.
1 Woofter, T. J., Jr. and Others, Landlord and Te11ant on the Cotton Plantation,
Research Monograph V, Divi8ion of Social Research, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C., 1936.
2 Ibid.
For exceptions to the general definition, see p. 243.
□,
'ld
YGooglc
104 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
Ta&le A.-Plantations Enumerated, by County, 1937 and 193-4
State and county
___ ,
Total_ ... _-- -- --- -- -- • --- - ------ -- -- --- - -• -- -- --- - ---- · --- --- - ,__
Alabama. __________________________________________________________ _
Bibb... ----------------··--·---------------------------------··Bullock
________________________________________________________ _
Calhoun ______________________ . __________ . ___ -- --- . - -- - --- -- -- -Elmore _________________________ . _______ . __ . ___ .. __ . ___________ _
Hale .. _________________________________________________________ _
LeudePdaJe_. ___________________________________ . __________ . ___ .
Lowndes. _____________ .. _. ____ ----------- ___ ._ ... -- . __________ . Arkansas .. ________________________________________ .. ______ ._. _____ _
Chicot.·---------------------------·------·-···---------·------Crlttenden
____________ . __ ... _____ . _________________ . __ .. ______ ..
Jefferson ___________________________ --- ______ . ____ . ____ . ___ .. ___ _
Lincoln ________________________________________________________ _
Lonoke. ______________________ .. _. _________ . ___ . __ .. ____ .... _.. _
Miller. ________________________________________________________ _
i~l~ri________________________________________________________ _
woodruff_
--- ---- -- ----- ----- --------- -- -- -- -. ------. ---- ----. --_
Oeor,rla.
___________________________________________________________
Carroll _________________________ .------.------.---- -.. --- . -· - ... .
Dod~e-. ---------------. ---· ___ ----------- -------. _. ---- .... . .. .
Hancock·--------------·-----------·-------·---······-·-········
Jenkins.
_________________ .... _. _______ .. _________ . __ ._. __ .. _... .
McDuffie ___________________________________________________ ... .
Madison __________________________________ . __ . ______ . ____ ..... _.
Mitchell. ____________ . ______ ---·.---· ____ -----_. __________ . __ .. .
Webster
____________ --------- _____ ---- -- ----- -- -- . -- ... - --, _____
.. -.. _.
Louisiana.
___________________________________________________
Caddo.·------------------ __ . ____ . ________ ---· ___________ ._ ... __
Concordia. _____ --- --------------- -------· - ----. - . - . ·-. ·- __ --- ..
Lincoln. __ . ___ --- ___ --- ___ --- _---- ------- _-_--- _.. --- _____ - . - . -_
Tensas _______________ . ______ .. _... __ ----. __ . ___ . ______ . _______ ..
Webster
.. ___ .------_. __ --- _. .---------- -- . -- .... __
. _. --· _...
---.
Mls.•issippl. __
_______________________
_________________
·-·--_______
Adorns ... ________________ . _____ .-----·- _____ -- . __ . --- . _____ . _.. .
Carroll
____________________ ---------------·-----. ___ ·---._--· .. - _.
___________________________________________________________
Cloy
Coahoma ____________ . ____ .. ___________ .. ____ ... __ ...... __ .. __ .
i=:~_-_-::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::: :::: ::: ::: ::::::
WMhlngton __________________________________________ ......... .
Yawo
..... -----------------------------------·--··------·······
North
Carolina.
__ . _____ . ___ . ____________________________ ._._. ____ ._
Anson ...... ___ ._. ________ . __________ . ____________ .. ______ .. _.. .
Cumberland ___________________________________________________ _
E<l~ecombe_ ... _.. _.... ____ . ___ . _... __ . __ . ___ ..... __ . ______ ... _.
Iredell. __ .··-·- ___ .... _ ... _________ ......... ·-·· ..... ··-·-·-- ..
Matched
schedules
11134
1937
320
1146
2411
154
18
211
12
18
29
22
30
67
6
7
89
12
35
14
II
2
3
11
12
7
&
18
g
20
7
&
&1
2
10
115
4
41
8
3
6
12
&
9
12
13
12
9
51
6
17
7
14
7
100
15
10
II
10
14
10
17
18
51
14
12
21
4
g
13
18
.20
12
18
13
68
JO
19
10
19
10
174
211
17
14
22
20
25
21
30
46
13
12
17
4
3
&
7
10
.
8
49
6
1A
II
14
7
90
13
10
~
19
12
6
17
17
31
10
s
13
The representativeness of the Eastern Cotton Area sample for 1937
is directly related to the representativeness of the sample for 1934.
Available checks and appraisals by persons familiar with the areas
surveyed indicate that the 1934 sample, carefully selected on the
basis of cotton production, percent tenancy, per capita income from
agriculture, and the value of farm land per acre, formed a reliable
basis for analyzing production factors and tenant relations on cotton
plantations.• Omitting the four counties of Pulaski, Ark., Carroll
and Madison, Ga., and Iredell, N. C., and the seven Alabama counties
for which no schedules were included in the resurvey,• the distribution of plantations, by area, utilized in the present analysis was
Ibid., pp. 243-246.
• Chicot, Ark., was also omit-ted because no plantations were enumerated in
this county in 1934.
s
Dg1111edovGoogle
METHOD AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY • 105
found to be similar to the larger sample of the 1934 study (table B).
Moreover, by using the same plantations as the basis for the comparative analysis of plantation organization and operation, it appears
that the observed differences reflect actual changes in organization
and operation occurring among the larger agricultural units of the
Southeast.
Ta&le B.-Matched Plantatio111 for 1937 and 193-4 and Plantations Enumerated in 1934,
by Area
Matched plantations,
1937 and 1934
Number.
All anlalL •••••.• •.••••••.••••.•..•••••••••.••••••••••••••.. .•
246
Percent
100.0
1113' enu•
meratlon 1
Percent
100. 0
1-----1·----l----
Atlantlc Coast Plain................................................
:i:t
tl: !tl:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Upper Delta........................................................
Lower Delta........................................................
Interior Plain.......................................................
Mississippi Bluffs...................................................
Red River..........................................................
Arkansas River.....................................................
31
31
16
70
10
17
27
15
11
12.11
12.6
II. 5
32.1
7. 7
11.9
11.0
II.I
•. 5
12.1
:J
1
28.8
10.8
II. 5
10. 2
II. 1
6. 8
1 Distribution based on 462 counties. The counties with no plantatlom Included In the matched sslea
for 1937 and 1113-l were omitted. See table A,
0 git1zed by
Goos le
106 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
WPA Form DRS 200A
WORKS PROGRESS A0MINISTRA TION
Harry L. Hopldn1,.Ad111lnlstrator
PLANTATION SCHEDULE
Enumerated by ____________ Edited by (1) ______________ (2) ___________ _
I. Operator's name________ Same as 1934 ________ Tract number _______ _
2. Location of plantation: State ________ County ________ Township _______ _
Road _________ Nearest town _________ Distance (miles from) ________ _
3. Operator's residence: On plantation ______ Miles away ______ Address _____ _
4. How many other farms owned ___ _ _ _ 5. Other occupation of operator _____ _
6. Acres operated:
Item
1934
1935
1936
1037
1938
-----------------1---- ---- ---- ---- ---Total owned·---------------------------------·----·· ..... _....
7. Value: Of farm land ___ _ Of operator's residence ____ Other buildings ___ _
Animals ____________ Machinery ____________ Total value ____________ _
8. Number of vacant houses which are habitable or could be made so for $50 __ _
9. Type of tenant-1938:
10. Type of land:
I
Item
~~'::i
Acres
operated lamilies
Item
I Acres
,---
Wage hand. ______ --·-.--------------------- .. - ... -- -- .
In
Cropper ___ . - -- --------- --- --- -------------- -- -- -- . --- . -. --- ·-
Tillable land idle ................. ·-
croJ)S .............. .. -· -- ' .......•
Share tenant •... ·---···-· ... ··---.---------- ... --- . --- ... ··-·-
Pasture .................. __ -·······
Renter (cash or standing) ....... ------·---·- .......... ·······-
Woods not pastun,d __ .. .. _. ____ . _..
Family In house without crop .... ---·---·-·· _____ ... .
Wasteland ............ ·-··- ....... .
Total.·--········-·····-··-······----· ·--······- ....... .
Total.. ... •-·--·
METHOD AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY • 107
Farm Year Beginning 1937
11. Crop record:
Orop
Har•
vested
IICl'8II
1. Cotton,
Operator's sales
Quantity
produced
Price
Quantity
Value
Total
teuaut
shares
'IIV&(!e •••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••.••••••••••• •••••••• .••••••••••• •••••••• ••••••••••
2. Cottomeed, wage. . . . . • . •• • • • • • • • •.. • • . .• _.. . . . . _........... . . • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . • · · · • · · -- --· · • • · · · ·
3. Cotton, cropper....................... __ . _. . •• . . _........... . . . . . • . . . • _... •• • . • • . . . • . • . . . .••••.•••
4.
Cottomeed, cropper...•...••••••••••••..•.........•.............••........•••••• -·· ··· · · ·• ··•• ·•••
6. Cotton, share teuaut. . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • . • _. • . . . .. . . __ .......... . ....•. - . . . . . • . . • • • . . . . . . . . . • • · • • • · · • •
8. Cottonseed, share tenant.....•••.•••....••.....................•.............•.......... ·•••·•·•••
7. Corn, wage ............................ .......... __ . _........ __ ...... _................... -· .•.•....
8. Corn fodder, wage_ .................... _................................................. ··········
D. Corn, cropper __ . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • . . . .... __ . __ .......... __ _. . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •...•.•••
10. Corn fodder, cropper ...•...•..•••.•.......•...........•......................... -···-·-- ......••.•
11. Com, share tenant ............••...••......•••........•..... -·•···-- .....................•.....•••
12. Com fodder, share tenant ..........•...•.•.•••...•..•••............................•.......•••.•••
18. Tobacco, WIii!" .••.....••.•.........••• ..•••..........•••.............•...••..............•.•••.•••
14. TobBCCO, cropper......•............•.•.•.•.•..........•..................•...•.... __ ......••••.•••
16. Tobacco, share tenant....•.•••...••.•. _.•....•.. _.......... _ .. _..........................•••...•••
UI. lrfloh potatoes •.........•..•.•....•.•................................ _......•.•..............••.•••
17. Sweet potatoes .....••..•..•.•••.••••........................ ---·-----••·····••·· ....•.......••.•••
18. Wheat ....•..•...•••..•••••.•....•.•.................•...... ---··--- .........................•.•••
JD. Oats •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• _•••.•. _ .••••••••••••••••• __ ••••••••••
ID. Cowpeas for seed ................................ ................................................. .
21. Cowpeas for ha:,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ .
22. Alfalfa hay_........................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... -.. - -.... -. . . . . . -. -•.. -- • • •· · • • • • •
23. Peanuts...•...••...•••.•.....•••.••••......•.......•..••.•........• - .....• -· •... --·· •... • •······ •·
24. Sugar cane. _. . • . • . . • • • • • • • . • . . . • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . • . . . . . ...... _ _......•... _ . . . . . . . . • •.•••• _••
211. Sorghum ...•.•.••••.•••••••.••••••••............................•........•...•.............•••••••
28. Soy beans ...•.•.•••..••••••••••••••••••......................................•..•........•.•••••••
'11. Oats, clover, vetch •...••.••.•.••...•.............................. _........•..............••••••••
28. Other (spoolfy) ... _......•••..•..•..•...•.••.•... _.•.....•..................•...•.......•..••••••••
~ ······································· ····•····· -·•········· -······· -··········· ........
·······-·-
30. ······································· .......... ····•--····- -······- -·-········· ........ ·········31. ···-··································· .......... ··········-- ........ --·•··••···· ..•••••• ······----
32. Orchard ••••...••..•••....••.•••.••••.•...................... -······· .....•.•.... -·······-·········
ll8 0111"den ............••••.••••....••••••..•••..•...................•..........................••.•••
34. Total crops .•••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••.•.•••.••••. -····•·· _..••••••••..•••••••.•••••••••
36. Othersourcesoflnrome,rentrecelved ......•.........•••••.. --·-···· .••..•...........••..•..••••••
36. Charges against tt'nant shlll"es .....••.•......•......•••...•..............••.••... _...••.....••..•••
37. Other {specify) .......••...••••••••••............ -••········· .....................................•
Total ....•••••••••••.••.•••••••••••..................•.....................••....•.••. _..•...•••
D1gi zed by
ll1no.7'1:G_
Goog1e
108 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
12. A. A. A.-soil conservation bene-
15. Current expenses:
fits:
To landlord (1937 crop) __ .....•.••••••••••••••••••
To tenant (1937 crop) ...........•...••••••••••••••
13. Livestock products:
Item
Total
amount
Wap hands ........................... ......... .
Operator's sales
Rations or board ....••••••••••••••••••• .•••••••..
~ft':·
Valoe
_________ ,___ - - - ---
Cotton picking •••••••••••••••••••.•••• -· --······
Butter .••.••••••••••••••...•••.....•.....••••••
Tenant ()()('8Sional labor ••••••••••••••••.•••••••••
Milk .. _..•••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••.••••••
Repaln, dwelling .. ·-_ .•••••••••••••••••••••••..•
Chickens ••••••••••••••••••••••••.•..••....•••••
Repalnl, ham~, l'mlces, Implements_ .. _,-·········
Cotton chopping .••••.•...••.••••••••••.•••••.•••
Item
Price
MLsrellaneous lahor __ •••••••••••••••••• .•••••••••
Eggs ..•••.••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••..•.•••••
Feed, grain ••....••...•••••••••....•...••..••••••
Pork and pork products •.••••••••••••••••••••••
Feed, rougbap ••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••
Beer...................... ···-··· .............. .
Veterinary 119es, etc ..•••••••••••••••••• ....••••.•
Total ••..•..•.••••••••..... •••·•••· ······•
8-18, etc.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ······--·Fertllwr, wapa ...........••..•....... ...•.•••••
H. Total cash income:
(11, 12, 13) •••..•. ---------··
16. Livestock (plantation owned):
HonN ... ........................•.•.............
Mules .. ......................................... .
Cows ............................................ .
Fertilizer, soda, tenant and Ol'OPJIII'........••....
lnmranoeon property .............•....•....••••
Tues .................................. ......... .
Rent ......... ························· ......... .
IDtenet................................ . .........
Obmtng ••••.•..•••••••••••••••••••••••••.•...•••
Calves . ..........•••.••••••••.••.. · ••....•.•. •·••
Total apeJlllel ..•••.•••••••••••••
Sheep or goats....•••••.•••••••.••••••••••••••••••
Pip...........•.••••••••• ··•·••••••••••••••••••••
Ohlcltena ........................................ .
Other ...... _.. __ ......... --.. --- --·····-· - --... -·
Number or above work stock kept In central bun
or pastun,s ____________ -- ---·-·--··--···········
Number kept on tenant--··········-·--······
What items ol leed
WhY--··············--····
were bought
······-·····-·········
..••••••••
Cash after aettllng, to tenants .......•••••••••••••
Total tenants' share or upemes . ..•........••.•••
17.
Number ol lamilles Rdvanoed subsl9tenoe _......••
Usual monthly advance... Number olmonths ..•
Total ian<llord advances !or subsistence_ ..•.......
Interest rate charged_ .....................•......
Amount ol Interest •••.•••.•..••.•••••••.•.•••••••
METHOD AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY • 109
18. Number of tenant and laborer families living on place and size of operations:
111811
11187
11136
1113'
Item
White Nllfll'O White Negro White Nllfll'O White Negro White Negro
Total famlllea •••••••••• ···--·· ••••••• ····-·· ••••••• ·--·-·· -··--·· ··-···- •••••••••••••• ·-··---
Wage band ...••. _. ____ ••••• __ -·-·--· ··-···· ····-·· ·-··-·· .•••••• ·-·-··- ···--·· -·---·- --····· ······Cropper ......•••• _•••••• __ ••• _______ --·--·· ··-·-·· -·-·-·- _______ --·---- ·------ -·-···- .••.••. ······-
8hare tenant·--·---·-·---·-·- --····· -·--·-· ······- ···-·-· ·--·--- ------- ----·-- -----·- ·---··· ··----Renter·····--·---------·-·--· ·-·--·- ·-··--· ··-·-·· ····-·- -·····- ------- ------- ------- ·----·- --··--·
Displaced.- .. ···-·----·------ ·---·-· -·---·- ·------ ------· --·---- -----·- -----·- ----·-- -·----· ·····-·
Land In crope .•• ·--·-·-·----- _______ -···--- -·--··- ··---·- ------- -·----- ---··-- ______________ -·--··-
18a. Seasonal labor:
(I) Percent of operator cotton chopped with off•plantatlon labor.··-··------·----·----------·-·----·-----(2) Percent or renter cotton chopped wltb off•plantatlon labor .. ·-··--·----·--·-··---·----·---·----------(3) Percent or share renter cotton chopped with off•plantation labor------·--···-··-------------------·--·-
(4) Percent or cropper cotton chopped with off-plantation labor .. ·--···-·-------·----··---·-----------··-(5) Percent or operator cotton picked with off-plantation labor •.• --·--·-------------·-------------------·(~ Percent or renter cotton picked with off·plantatlon labor .... _..•••. ·----··---····-- ••••• ·- __ •. ·- ..••.•
( Percent of share renter cotton picked with off•plantatlon labor .. ···-.·-··-·- .. --· ..... __ ... __ ··- ... ··(8 Percent of cropper cotton picked with otl-plantatlon labor··---··-·-·- .•..•.•. ···--. __ ... ·- __ ·-·-·.·_·--
18b. Number of families who started to share crop in 1937 but who "gave up
their crop" ______________________________________________________ _
Why _____________________________________________________ _
18c. Reaaona for changes in labor utilisation since 1934:
Reuou
111M-35..• -- • ------------- --- --- ---·---------------·-- -------·---------- -- --- ------- --- ·-·---·-. -- • - ••••••
1935-36 .•• _-- - -- -- -- -- ------ ··----·--- ---- --- ·--- ----- ------------·------------------- ·--- • • • - - • • - • • - • • - • -
1936-37.•. - • - ••• -- -- • -- •• - ---- ---- --- ---- ··-- --·- --- -- ·- - ---------·--· - - • ---- --- -- -- • -- - - • -- -- - - . - .• - •• ·--
111117-88 .•.•• ---- • - • --- -- ·- ---- ------------------·--·-- --------·------------------ - · - • • •• -- - • -• · • · • • • • - -- • -
18d. Availability of types of labor in 1937:
Type of labor
E:rplanatlom
Tenant ........ ····--··-··-··----------- ................. _...... ··---·----···-···· ..........•... ······-8bare tenant ... •--··-··--·--·-·------·· .•.•.•••••.••••• --·····- ··-·--·--··-·--·----------·-----·-····Cropper..... ·-··-·-··--------·---·-·-·· •. - . ··-· ··--· ·-. -----··- -··----·---------- ---··-·------·· · ·- -· · ·
Waae family.·--··--------------------· ·---··-· ··------ -· .. ·--· ----------·------------------· ·---·--· ..
Wage band .. ·-··----·-·------·-----·--- ·---·--- -------· ·----·-- -·-·---------------·-·-------·-----···-·
NolUlllident -nal labor ... ---··----- --·----- ------·· ··------ -·---··--·-----·---·--------···-·-···--·
D1gi• zed by
Google
110 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
19. Landlord borrowing for current expenses in 1937:
Time used
1--------,-------l lnterest Security Amount
paid
Source
Date borrowed
Date repaid
Bank .................................... ···--·-····--·--··-····-··---·---------··--···········-·------
Fertilizer oompany...•. •-·-···-···---··· ·--·······-···-· ·-·-··········-- ·--·-·-··· ·-····-··· ···-·---··
Merchant .. ·----·····-············-·····--···-·-·-··-··--·--·········-·-·-·····-·--··---·--··-···---··
Oovernment----·-··-·-···-······-----··· ·-··--------·--- -······-··--···· ·-·--····· ··--··--·· --··-··--·
1------1------1---- - - - - - -
Total.-··----··--···-·---··-·------····-·-----···-··•··-·····--···-··-·-··---··----·-··--·--·····
20. Landlord debts (excluding those for current crop):
December 31, 1936
December 31, 1ga7
Amount
Amount
Type
Rate
Rate
Mortgage:
Land ..• -----·-······-·······-···-·-·-·-··············-•··-····--·---·····-----········--····--····
Chattels ......• _... ·-···-··········-···············-··-··········---·····-·-···--······--····--···-
Bank._. ······-···············-·········-·-····---·-·--···· ............ ··--······ -·-··--·-··· ·-········
Merchant note ............• ·-··········-·····-·······-·••·- ·-·········- ..••••••.. ········-··· .•.•.•••••
Open account .•... -....•....••..•••.........•...•...•....... --···-····· -·-······· ····--······ ·····-····
Government.·-············································ ............ ··-······- -·-········· ·······-··
Other •. ·-··-•···••··•·······-···························•·· ...•....••.. ·-·····-·· .....•...... -·-·······
0 Jil1zed l.ly
Goog Ie
METHOD AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY • 111
21. What principal changes in the cropping and other farm enterprises have
taken place since 1934?
Changes with respect to-
Reasons for change
Cotton:
1935.. •••••• ••...••...•.•••••••••.••...•••..•..••••••••.•••.•••.•••••••.••..••.••••••..••.••••...••.••
11136..•••••••••••••.••••.•••..•••.•.....•••.••..••••••..••.......•.....•••.••••• ••••·••• •.•.••.•••••••
1937••.••.•••••.•••••••••••..........•..•...•••..•.•••••.•......•...•......••••......••.•• ••··•· ••••••
1938..••...••• •••·•••• •·••·• •.••••.....•.•••.•...•.••..•.•......•.•.......•..••..•.•.••..•••..••••••••
Corn:
11136....... ·•••••••• •••·•• ••••••.......••.....••••.•...••••.••..•••....•.......••.•.•.•••• ••••••••••••
1936•...•.•. ·••••• •••••••••••••.••. · ...• · • · • ••• • · • •• • · · • •.• • • • .. · • · · · · · · · · · • • · · • · · · · •••• • · • ···••••••••
11137.•...••••• •••·•. •·•··•·• •.••..•....•..••..•••...•.••.•.•••.••.•.•.•••.•..........•..••..•.•.•.•.••
1V38••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Conservation crope:
1935..•..•.•......•••••.••..••.•.... ··••··•••·•••••••••••·•·•••·········••·••··••··••••·••••••••••·•••
1936.•.•••••••......•••.••••...•.... ····•••••••••••••••••••••·••••··•·••··•··•·••·••·•·•·••••••••••·••
1937.•.....••.•.•.•.•.••.•••.• •···· ...•••••••••••••••••.•.•••.•.....•..•..•.•.••.•.••••••••.••••••••••
1938.......... • • • • • •• • . • • • • . . • . . • . . . . .••••••••••••••••••••••••.••.••.••.•••.••••••.•.•••••••.•••••••••
Beer cattle:
1935 ..•..•.•...•.••.••••••••••...........• •••••••• ••••••••••.••••••...•..•.•••..••..•••••••.•••••••.••
1938 .......•.• ·••·••••• •••.••.••••..... ••·•••••• ••••••·••• •..•.••...••••••.• ••·•• •••••.•••••.....•••..
11137.•...•...••.••••••.••.•••...•..•..••.• ·•••••·• •••• ••••·• .•••..•••.....••••.••.••••••••.•••••.•••••
1938 .......•.•..••••••••••••••••••.. ··••·••···•·•••··••••··•···•·••••··•·•••••••••••••••••••·•··••••••
Dairy:
1935 ·······•··•••••·•••••••••••••·· ··•·······························································
1V3ft.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
1937••..•. ·••·•• •• ••••·•·· ••••.•.•....••.•••....•••..............•....••..•••••••..•.•..•••••••.•••...
1938.... •• • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • •• • . . . . . •••.••••••••••••..•........••••••..••••••••••..••.•••••••••••••••
Hop:
11136......•.••••••. •·•·• ••••••••........•••••••••••••••••••..•••••••••••.•.•••••.••.•••••••••••••••.••
1936 ..••••....••••....•. ···•··•••• · · .• •••••·• · •••••••• ·•··• · •••.••••..•••• · ••••••••• · · · · · .. · · · ••••.. · ·
1937.•••..•.••••. ••••••••• •.••••••.....•.•..•...•...•.••••..••••••..••....•••••.••....••••••••...•••••
1938•••••..•..••••.•..•••••••.••.... ··••••·•••·•••••••·•••··••••·•••····•·•••••••··•······•·······••··
Fruits and vegetablee:
1935 ·····••······••···•·•·•••••··•• ····•·····························································
1936••..••. ·•·· .•••••• ••••••••••••• • - .•••• ••••••••••·•· .•• · · · · · .. • · · • · · .•• • · • • · · ... · · · · · ••. · •• · · •.. •. •
1937••••.• ··•··•••••· •••.•.•.•......•• __ .•••.....•..• ·••••·• ••......••..••••••••.•....••••••••••••••••
1938 .•.••••••..•••.•.••••••••••.•.•.•••••••.••.••.•••••••••••.••••••••••••.••.•••••••••• ••••••••••••••
Other (specify):
1935 .•••••••••••••••••••••••••••.....•.••.• •••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••.•••••••..••..••••••••
1936..••••••••••••••.•.•... ·····••· ........•••.•••••••.••••••••••••••..•••.•.•.•..••••••... ·••·· ...•••
1937••..•••.....••.•••.•••.....••••• - . · .... · • · .. · · •••••••••••••• · .•••. · · · ••••• · · · • • ••• · .•• · · · · · · · ...••
1938 .......•.••••. ••••••• .• •·•·•·••• . ··•········ ...•••••.............•....•.•.••..••••••••••••••••••.•
D Jiltzed l.ly
Goog Ie
112 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
22. How are the changes in the cropping and other farm enterprises related to
changes in labor utilization? _______________________________________ _
23. What effect have the changes in the cropping and other farm enterpri8ell
had on the well-being of croppel'I! and laborel'I! remaining on the farm?
24. Trend in mechanization of farm operationa:
Namberoftracton
A.Tneton
9
~
Kind
Model
OT~ t---y----r----r----.--11118
11117
11136
11135
---------1--- - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 - - - 1 1 - - - 1 - - - -
B. Amount of multiple row Year
equlpment
started
........_
• ~""'
Number of each type
Number ofrowsi--~---:----r---~--or sl&e
11138
Ulil7
11138
1936
111.14
---------,------1------1-------------
2. l'oar-bone:
I.Thre&-hone:
,. Two-bone:
6. Ou.horse:
---------1----------- --- ------ -----11138
a.
11137
11136
11135
Acrea handled by tractors hired
lrom others
Digi• led by
Google
11134
METHOD AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY • 113
25. Acres handled in 1937 by power and worketock combinations:
Four-row
tractor
Two-row
tractor
Fom-bone
Tbne-bone
Two-bone
One-bone
Item
v-
y-
y-
v-
v-
v-
M
M
M
M
M
M
Acnll start• Acres start• Acres start• Acres start- Acnll start• Acres start-
Breaktnc .•••..........•.•••.••••••••......•.•.•.•...•..•.•.•.•.•..•.•.•••••....•.....••...•••••.•
Beedbedpreparatlon.....•••••••.•••••••.••••••••....••.••••••••••••.••..•••••••••••......•••••••••
Planting..•...••......•••.•••••••••••.•..••••..•....•••••••••••••••••...••••.••••••••••••.••••••.•
Cultivating •.••.••.•••••••••••••••••.••...•••..•••.••..•••.•••••••••.••..•.•••••.•••••••••••••••••
Mowing •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••.••....••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••
26. (a) How many work stock have been displaced by the tractors wied in
1937?_ ................ Explain.·-···-···--··-···---··-------(b) Could further reductions have been made in 1937T Ye1 (
Number of work stock . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .
) No ( );
Explain ________________ _
(c) Could further reductions have been made in 1938? Ye1 ( ) No ( );
Number of work stock . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . Explain.··------- _____ _
27. (a) Were reductions in the number of resident cropper and wage families
made by the use of tractors in 1937? Yee ( ) No ( ). If yes, how
many families were eliminated? ___ . ____________ Explain_. ______ _
(b) Could further reductions have been made? Yes (
of families---·------------
) No ( ); Number
Explain ___________________________ _
28. What factors retard the shift to greater mechanization on the farm? List:
D1qj· zed by
Goog1e
114 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
29. Arrangements with respect to 1937 nonresident seasonal labor:
Cotton
pickers
Item
Cotton
choppers
I. Source ____ ------_------- ____ ----------------------------------------------- --- --- -- --- ---- ----- ------2. Who rnmlshed transportation ________________________________________________________________________ _
Cost of transportation ____ ---------------------------------------------------- _______________________ _
3. Mllee to obtain:
TotaL - _____ - - _- _- _- - - ------ -- --- ---------------- - - ---- - -- -- --- _---- --- - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - _________ _
Over hard surfaoe rood ______ ---------------------------------------------- - - ------- --- __ ------- ____ _
Over dirt road ___________________ -------------------------------------- _____________________________ _
4. Accommodations furnished:
Shelter ______________________________ --------------- ____________________________________ . ___________ _
Board_ --- - ---- ----- ---- - ---- --- -- --- -- -- --- -- ----- - --- ---- - -- - --- ----- -- --- - - -- -- - -- --- - ----- --- - -- Other _____ -------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________ _
Remarks·--------------------------------------------------------------
D Jiltzed l.ly
Goog Ie
Appendix D
CHANGES IN LABOR REQUIREMENTS
FOR COTTON PRODU~TION
FoR THE purpose of estimating changes in the amount of labor used
in producing cotton in the United States, the cotton-producing States
were divided into five selected areas: Southeastern cotton, other
Southeastern, Southwestern, California, and all other States. 1
In calculating the amount of labor required for cotton production,
the man-hours per• acre for each State were weighted by harvested
acreage to obtain a rate for each area 2 (table C). The average manhours for each area were then weighted by the respective acreage to
give the average man-hours per acre for the United States. For the
crop year 1938 an average of 106 man-hours of labor was used per acre
actually harvested in the United States. Labor requirements fluctuate from year to year, however, as the estimated amount of labor
used annually in producing cotton varies directly with acreage
harvested and yield per acre 3 (table D).
The amount of labor required to produce an acre of cotton rose
steadily from 1934 to 1937 and then declined in 1938. This increase
1 The Southeastern cotton area includes Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The other Southeastern
area includes Florida, Tennessee, and .Virginia. The Southwestern area includes
Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. All other States include Illinois,
Kansas, Kentucky, and Missouri.
1 See Holley, William C. and Amold, Lloyd E., Changes in Technology and
Labor Requirements in Crop Production: Cotton, Report No. A-7, National
Research Project, Works Progress Administration, Philadelphia, Pa., September
1938, pp. 124-127.
1 Basic factors affecting yield per acre from year to year are deficient and/or
excessive moisture, insect damages, plant diseases, and losses from frost, floods,
excessive heat, and hot winds.
115
D Jiltzed lly
Goog Ie
116 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
in labor was related to the yield of lint per acre which also rose
annually from 1934 to 1937, followed by a decrease in 1938. The
average labor per bale' for the United States amounted to 213 manhours in 1937 as compared with 217 man-hours in 1934 but rose to
215 man-hours in 1938.
To&le (.-Estimated Labor Requiremenh for Cotton Production in the United States
per Acre and per Bale, by Area and State, 193-4-1938
Man-houn 1
,
Total (In mllllona)
Area and Btac.
1938 JU37
)93(1
1113& 11134
-
I
ul381um 183& 1935'19:W 1938 1937 1938 1935 1934
- -- - - - -
United BtatM total ______ 2,884 4,044 2,700 2,294 2,090 108 120
- - ---- - - - Ill -12283
-
Boutheo..•tern cotton Btattlll. __ . _ 1,635 2,593 1,856 1,488 I, 38ll 137 163 134
Alabama _____ .. _______ . ___ . 272 412 288 267 239 132 153 124
Arkansas .... __ . ___________ 326 459 311 205 208 153 165 125
Oeor~la ____________________
370 269 261 238 105 139 IJ8
Louisiana _________________ 211
171 279 193 141 122 153 178 138
~~~~"'t..1:~iiri.. ::::::::::::
South Carolina._ ..... __ ...
Other Southeastern States .. _..
Florl<la _____________________
---····-·---··---Vlr~lnia
Trnrn•5..,f'f' ___ ------····---Southwestern BtatM. _________ .
Arizona. _____ .. ____________
New Mexico _______________
Oklahoma_ .. __ . ___________
Texas. ___ . ____ ---------·- -.
California __ ...... ______________
All other States•--------------1
413
86
157
144
9
3
132
673
31
13
IJJ
518
48
64
653
);3
247
201
13
g
179
),Mil
49
23
152
865
!13
78
465
133
197
134
II
7
11ft
601
30
18
511
499
50
69
307
127
180
IOI
JO
11
ll5
M4
21
11
I 11
501
27
34
Per bale (r,oo pounda
gr,189 weight)
Per acre
19)
157
146
179
114
137
100
71
166
144
64
404 69 119
29 141 134
47 170 132
278
141
163
126
g
8
109
499
18
13
64
1113
100
126
169
115
66
180
113
152
143
87
155
139
141
143
120
131
148
42
144
)34
25
43
135
133
78 215 213 218 218 217
112 244 244 244
119 112 252 253 252
98 98 241 241 240
121 Ill 248 247 248
Ill 103 2.~3 253 254
112 110 242 243 243
137 145 222 222 223
132 127 242 241 241
114 138 273 270 270
lift 102 34fl 325 355
120 133 250 209 212
113 143 269 269 268
49 38 17) 170 170
133 135 1118 157 157
117 141 IM 141 144
48 24 197 197 193
47 40 188 188 170
124 131 113 112 113
119 134 182 183 182
244
252
240
246
254
244
222
242
267
323
200
268
173
IM
147
198
1811
113
183
241
252
ZIii
248
252
243
223
240
2811
321
222
2ffll
170
164
144
1911
lftB
1)2
184
n11.""<1 on harvP,tP<l """'"""·
t Illinois, Kan,as. Kenturky, and Mh.,ourl.
Bourre: na...,d on data from the U. B. Department of Agrlcnltu~. Bu~au of Agrlrultural Eoonomlca,
Washington, D. C.
In the Southeastern cotton area an average of 137 man-hours was
utilized in producing an acre of cotton for the year 1938, or 31 hours
more than the average for the United States. The high labor requirements resulted largely from small cotton acreages per farm, the use
of small horse-drawn equipment, the large amounts of fertilizer
applied, high yields, and the great amount of labor used in hoeing,
chopping, and harvesting. In 1937 which was a year of much higher
yields than 1938 the average amount of labor per acre in the Southeastern cotton area was 163 man-hours.
More labor was used in 1938 in the other Southeastern States and
all other States than in the remaining sections of the United States
in which cotton is raised. This is explained by the small cotton
acreages and large amounts of hand labor used.
In terms of man-hours per bale of cotton produced also, more labor
was used in the Southeastern cotton States and other Southeastern
' 500 pounds gross weight (includes bagging and ties and contains an average
of 4 78 poUDds of lint).
D1gi• zed by
Google
TcrfJle D.-Cotton Acres Harvested, Produdion, and Yield, by Area and State, 1934-1938
Yield of lint per acn (pounda)
Ba!M I produced (ID tboWl&DdS)
Acres barveated (ID tboUllaDda)
Area and State
11138
1937
1938
11135
1934
1938
11137
111:!G
11135
1934
11138
19a'7
--------------------1----1----~----l----l --------t----1---,---,---,---,--270
23G
I 3.1.6%1 I 211,755 I 27,Mll I 211,SM I 11,1143 I 18,1146 I 12.399 I 10.1138 I 11,8.111
l---t--21!8-1
---,---,---,---1---1---1---I---I
United Statea total •.....••.••••.••••.••••••. l 24,:wl
Southeastern cotton St.ates . . ..................... . II, 944
Alabama .. .......... .. ......•.•..••••.•.•••... 2. 058
Arkansas ..... •.• . •.. . . . . . . _..•....••.•.•....• 2. 125
Georgia ...........•••.....••......•.•••••••••. 2,009
Loulsluna .. ....• .•••. . • . . ..... . ...••.•.• _..... 1,119
M ississippl. . . . ... .• . .... .. .. . ..• •...•......... 2,533
8.57
North Carolina.
1,243
South Carolina .. .. . . . .
849
Other Southoostern Stat. .
76
Florida .... . •.•.•. .. •. •. . . ........••.....•.....
733
Tennessee. ...• .•••••• • .• ..... .. ... . . .. ..••.•..
40
Virginia .. ....... ••••••••.• ••. . .•......••.•....
Southwestern States ............................. . 10, 737
203
Arizona ... . ...••••• • •..•.•.•••••••.•.•...•••..
114
New Mexico ..••••••••. •. . .•... •.........•.. . .
Oklahoma . •..•.•• ••••• . ••• . •.. . •...•.....•.... 1,6M
Texas ..•••.••..•••••••.•.•.•••.•••............ 8, 784
341
California ..... . . .... ••••.•.... ..... ..•...••••• _._.
377
AU other States 1 •.••.. • .••••.•• • ••.•••••••••••••.•
16,925
2,694
2,782
2,661
1,569
3,421
1,103
1,095
1,121
118
1137
M
13,842
2,321
2,400
2,276
1,401
2. 998
957
1,300
938
88
797
li3
14,172
16,369
299
1511
2. 372
12, 539
620
lll8
116
2,251
11, 597
688
435
368
12, 8'.15
2, :M3
2,137
2,155
1,268
2, 740
930
1,362
891
89
7il0
82
13, 225
1110
00
2,318
10,657
218
340
12,417
2, 133
2. 167
2, 142
1,189
2,530
970
1,286
II08
92
7611
trl
12, 11711
136
IIO
2,647
10. ()g'7
223
348
e. 1198
10,634
1,081
1,631
1,349
1, II04
I, ilOO
1,104
852
676
I, 704
388
648
528
26
4IIO
12
3, 1141
11111
116
M3
3,086
'24
352
7,611
1,145
1,295
I, 086
761
1,911
5117
8,102
744
816
4117
40
081
31
'33
43
403
313
15.1
773
I. 164
83
a, 525
1111
111
290
2, 1133
738
442
427
3:M
2,692
780
1,023
e.
1,()511
853
9
"'
"'
Cl.
0-
'<
319
2111
290
304
~28
203
270
337
377
216
1, ()511
968
556
1,259
672
744
485
I, 142
631
1178
:M9
378
4611
297
338
289
317
31
28
317
30
a. 733
135
75
toll
1113
320
1411
175
482
162
338
312
11111
!IOI
400
36
2, 1129
117
289
32'2
90
321
4811
&tf1
15.1
lM
:1.956
2311
UICI
2. 401
2511
2M
168
1117
lkM
44e
61111
347
ilOO pounds g,-oss weight.
• Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, and Missouri.
~ : Based on data rrom the U. s. Department or Arr •tlture, Bureau or Agricultural Economlm, Wubl111ton, D. O.
1
6, 723
9il0
8t!!I
1113Cl 111136
11111
185
- -238-263
%16
249
228
200
30.5
298
m
2,\'I
170
2CIO
298
119
438
457
62
121
574
BM
226
191
235
210
220
2114
2Cll
1934
172
220
213
1112
21&
1~
21&
311
252
203
:M7
:112
273
135
405
145
2M
302
108
410
3118
'8()
1115
117
133
524
2Cll
68
114
5116
862
Ir
)>
a:,
0,0
,0
m
0
C
;i;
~
'"
z
~
...,
0,0
"~
0
0
z
I
0
g
Q
(')
0
0
.......
~
z
•
...
118 • THE PLANTATION SOUTH
States than elsewhere. During the crop year 1938 this amounted to
244 and 273 man-hours, respectively. Since 1934, however, the manhours required per bale have remained practically constant for both
areas.
Less labor was used per acre of cotton in the Southwestern States
than in other areas. In 1938 the average was only 63 man-hours per
acre or 43 hours less than the average for the United States. This
difference was due to the use of large-scale equipment, less hand labor,
and fewer operations, as well as smaller yields which required less labor
to harvest. On the basis of labor per bale, however, the advantage
of the Southwestern area is much less than it is on the basis of labor
per acre. In 1937, 170 man-hours were used per bale as compared
with 213 man-hours for the United States.
California has relatively high labor requirements for irrigation,
hoeing, chopping, and harvesting. The latter requires large amounts
of hand labor because of exceptionally high yields per acre. An
increase from 1934 to 1938 of 10 hours per acre in labor required was
due to increased yields. No change was noted in average manhours per bale.
In 1938 approximately 2.6 billion hours of labor were used in producing cotton in the United States. This estimate is about one and
one-half billion hours below that for 1937 and approximately onehalf billion hours greater than the amount of labor used in 1934.
Considerably more than 50 percent of the total labor used for cotton
production in each year from 1934 through 1938 was in the Southeastern cotton States. The Southwestern States were next in importance, accounting for approximately one-fourth of all labor requirements.
o
1i11zedbvGoogle
Index
119
Digi• led by
Google
o
,1
edbyGoogle
INDEX
P<JJJe
Absentee ownership _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Acreage. See Crop acreage; Idle cropland.
Agricultural Adjustment Administration _ _
Almaok, R. B_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
Areas surveyed (au also Plantations surveyed) _ _ _ _ _
Arnold, Lloyd E _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
2
3, 5, 10, 29, 31, 32, 40
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 68n
_ _ _ _ _ xi-xiii, 103
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 115n
Bankhead Cotton Act _
Bennett, Charles A
Blalock, H. W
Burney, L. E ___ _
3
22n
58n
61n
Caliver, Ambrose _________________ - ___ - __ 66n, 96n
Cash renter, definition of_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7
Census, Bureau of the:
Agriculture _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 48n, 49n
Mortality Stati&tiC3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 60n, 61n
Civil Works Administration ___________________ 51-52, 61
Clark, Taliaferro _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
61n
Compulsory school attendance _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
66
66n
Cook, Katherine M _ _ _ _ _ _
Cotton yield, factors affecting_ _
_ ___ 9-10, 81
Credit, short-term:
Of operators _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ 24-26, 86
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 26-28
Of tenants _ _ _ _ _
Crop acreage:
By tenure and crop _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ - &--9
In corn _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
5, 80
In cotton_ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
5, 80-81
In peanuts _ _ _
5, 80
In tobacco _
_ _ _ _ _ 5, 80
Trend in _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3-4, 79
Crop year, special factors affecting _ _
xi, 5
Cropper, definition of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7
Debts, long-term, of operators _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ 23-24, 85
_ _ _ _ _
- - - - - - _ 57n
Dickens, Dorothy _
Diet, adequacy of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _
55-58
121
Digi• led by
Google
122 • INDEX
Education (see also Illiteracy):
Page
One-room and two-room schools _
66
School attainment _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
64-65
64-65,96
Special handicaps to
Support of _ _
63
Edwards, Newton _ _
63n
Electrical service _ _
- 68--69
Embree, Edwin R _ _
67n
Ensminger, Douglas _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
58n
Expenses, current:
Operator _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 40-41, 95
Plantation _
_ 34-35, 92, 93
Tenant _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
44
Farm operators, changes in, by tenure _ _ _ _ _ _ _
49
Farm Security Administration _ _ _ _ _
_ 51-53,62,73, 74,75
_ ___ 51-52
Federal aid per capita _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
________ 51-52,61,63
Federal Emergency Relief Administration
Federal Housing Authority _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
75
Gregory, Cecil L _ _ _
58n
Hamilton, C. Horace _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
18n
Health conditions (see also Infant mortality; names of specific diseases) _ - 60-62
Holley, William C_ _
_ ______ _
115n
Horne, Roman L _ _
_ ____________ _
21n
Hospital facilities _
_ _ _ _ _
62
Housing, farm _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ - _ - _ _ _ 58-59
3-4
63-64
Idle cropland _ _
Illiteracy_ _ _ _
Income:
Cropper _______ _
51
Operator:
Gross cash _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ 39-40, 94, 95
Net cash __
_ _ 41-43, 94, 95
Plantation:
_ _ _ _ 33-34, 91
For highest and lowest one-fourth_
Gross __
30-34,89,90, 93
Net cash _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ __ 3f>--37,93
Tenant:
Gross cash _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ _ - 43-44
Net ________ - - __ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 46
Net cash _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ 45-46, 96
Infant mortality_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6I
Interest, annual rates of _ _ _ _
_ _ 24, 25, 27-28, 85, 86, 87
Investment, plantation, by type _ - _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - 29-30, 88
22
Johnson, E. A_
Labor:
By type - - - - - - - Distribution of, by tenure_
13-15, 81-83
- - - - - 7-8
oa,1,,s-JbvGoogle
INDEX• 123
Labor-Continued.
Page
Off-plantation:
Bytype _
16
_ _ 15--16
Extent of_
Transportation of _ _
_ _ _ _ _
17,84
115--118
Labor requirements for cotton production, by area and State_ _
Langsford, E. L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 20n, 26n
___ 69, 97
Library facilities _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Lively, C. E _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- - - - _
68n
___ 10-11
Livestock, increase in (see al&o Work stock)
McKibben, Eugene G _
Magazine circulation
Malaria - - - _
Mangus, A. R _
Mechanization:
Extent of _
Increases in _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Medical care program, of Farm Security Administration _
Migration. See Population, farm.
Moser, Ada M __________________ _
National Emergency Council __
Need, extent of ______ _
Negro tenants _______ _
Office of Education.
21n
- - 69,97
61
_ _ 61n,65n,68n
17-20, 84
___ 20-22
_ _ _ _ _
62
56n
76n
_ 50-51, 53-54
15
See U. S. Department of the Interior.
Pellagra _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Plane-of-living index_ _
Plantation, definition of __
Plantation operator:
Duties oL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Second occupation __
Plantations surveyed
Population, farm:
Changes in _ _ _
Migration of _ _ _
Proceedings of the National Health Conference _
Production, home-use _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
_
_
_
- - - - - - 60-61
_____ 67-68
xi, 103
1
1-2
_ xi-xii, 103-105
_ ____ 48-49
_ _ _ _ _
48
62
_ _ _ 39n, 46, 58
___ 72-76
Recommendations for improving Southern rural conditions
Relief, general _ _ _ _ _ _ _
----53
__ 52-53
Relief loads _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ 51-53
Resettlement Administration _
_ ____ 13-15,81-83
Resident families, by type _ _ _
Rural Electrification Administration _
68n
Sample:
___________________ 104-105
Distribution of
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
104
Representativeness of _
Schedule _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 106-114
D Jiltzed l.ly
Goog Ie
124 • INDEX
Page
Sebrell, W. H _____________ _
Share tenant, definition of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Size of plantations_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Smith, T. Lynn _____ _
Soil Conservation Service
Standing renter, definition of _ _
Study of Consumer Purchases
Subsistence advances _____ _
Survey, scope of _ _
61n
7
H
64n
_ 7~73
7
59
_ 26-28,44, 51,56,87
_ _ _ _ _ _
103
Tandy, Elizabeth C _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
62n
Technical Committee on Medical Care_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
60n
Thibodeaux, B. H _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20n, 26n
Tractors, use of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 17-20, 84
Turner, H. A_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
49n
Typhoid and paratyphoid fever _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • _ _ _ _ _ _
60
Unemployment Census, November 1937 ______________ _
50
U. S. Department of Agriculture:
Agricultural situation, summary _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
87n
Data on cotton production _ _
116, 117
Farm housing data _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
59n
Farm population estimates _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
48n
U. S. Department of the Interior, Office of Education ______ _
63n
United States Housing Authority _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 76-76
Veneral disease _ _ _ _ _
61
Wage hand, definition of_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
7n
Whetten, Nathan L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
65n
_ _ _ _ _
56n
White, H. C _ _
White, Max R _ _
_ _ _ _ _
58n
Williams, R. C _
62n
Wilson, Louis R_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
97n
_ ______ xin, ln, 5n, 50n, 58n, 6311, 72n, 10311
Woofter, T. J., Jr _ _ _
Work Projects Administration _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ 51-53, 61, 63, 75
Work stock, changes in use of (see also Livestock) _________ ·11-20, 84
Zimmerman, Carle C _ _ _ _ _ _ _
65n
0
D1gi:zed by
Google
@FedFRASER