88

divisions of the South, as well as for continental United
States. It follows that the percentage of the total
farm value represented by land alone is smaller for
owners than for tenants. The differences are shown
in the above table. The owner’s farm, however, is on
the average a more Valuable farm, so that the land,
while constituting a smaller part of the total value of
farm property, may nevertheless represent a greater
value than the land on the tenant’s farm. That this
is tosome extent the case is evident from the following
table, which presents the average values of different
classes of farm property: »

Tante XXVIII.—Average values per farm of specified classes of prop-
erty in farms of negro, Indian, and Mongolian farmers, classified
by tenure: 1900,

| avmaon vanon oF rama pnorsnry,

theand ana

DIVISION AND CLASS. improve-| Imple-
‘otal, | Tents | Build-| ‘ments | Live
"|| (except | ings. | and ma-| stock.

build. ehinery:

\ | e.
Continental United states: | |
Farms of—

$e7t Sit | $139 $1} si97
5,300 | 3,201) “s99 150 | 1,017
3s 4 82 2! "102
649 U5
90
esr | _ 189 25 9
2,968 | 2,087 wr] 929
625 | "157 2 98
479 | 122 2 bt
s61} 176 a7) 108
335} 104 26 94
184| big 223
805] 70 7 77
Big} oT} + 39 M
381 4 u 0
130 108
Bud | R15 i] 515
2) 75 2) I
300/76 2] 17
Be) 4 5) 90
es7] 158 52] 05
871d) Td ot | 4,005
403| 85 pats
49-98 me] 5
457| 81 2] 100

Jn continental United States and in each of the minor
Southern divisions except the Northern South Atlantic,
the owner’s farm is more yaluable than the tenant’s,
the difference being especially marked in the Western
South Central states. But in the Northern South
Atlantic division the total farm value and also the sepa-
rate values of land, buildings, and live stock are higher
for tenants than for owners. In the Southern South
Atlantic states, while the value of land is higher on
tenant farms, the values of the other items, as well as
the total farm value, are somewhat lower. In each of
the two South Central divisions, not only the total value
of the farm, but also the value of each class of farm
property, is higher on owners? farms than on those of
tenants. The farms of managers show, in every divi-

NEGROES IN THE UNITED STATES.

sion and for each class of property, a much higher value
than those of either owners or tenants.

Value of farm products by tenwre.—The following
table gives the per cent which the value of products of
1899 not fed to live stock for each class of farms by
tenure forms of the total value for all farms:

Taste XXIX.—Per cent distribution, by tenure, of the total value of

the farm products not fed to live stock, for furms of negro, Indian,
and Mongolian farmers: 1899.

PER CENT OF THE TOTAL VALUE cox
PRISED IN FARMS OF—

DIVISION. ‘Tenants,
Mana-
gers.

Own-

Continentel United States.

South Atlantic division... 8 || 95.7] 99.6
Northern South Ata 4g] ies] aK5
Southern South Atlantic 7.4 |) 89.0) 40.4

South Central division .. 77.0{| 40.2] 96.8
Eastern South Centzal a1} 49.5)  a2.6
Western South Central 69.7] 26.9) a8

For continental United States the owners’ proportion

of the total value of products not fed to live stock (24.1
per cent) is not as large as their proportion of the total
value of farm property (32.9 per cent), indicating that
their farms are less productive in proportion to the
value of the farm property than the farms of tenants.
In the Northern South Atlantic, however, the differ-
ence is the other way, the tenants’ farms representing a
slightly larger proportion of the total value of products
not fed than of the total value of farm property. The
per cent which the value of products not fed forms of.
the total value of farm property is given for each class
of tenure in the following table:

Tania XXX.—Per cent which the value of the produets not fed to live

stock forms of the value of farm property, for farms, of negro, Indian,
and Mongolian farmers, classified by tenure: 1899.

PER CENT WHICH THE VALUE oF THE
PRODUCTS NOT FED T0 LIVE srooK
FORMS OF THU VALUE OF FARM PROP-
ERTY FOR FARMS or—
DIVISION, |-——_-—.
‘Tenants,

Own- | Mana-

ers. | gers.
All. |} Cash. | Share,
Continental United States.......| 50.2] 60.9} 49.4
South Atlantic division .. 40.3) 17.6) 528]] 528] 62.9
Northern South Atlantic: 86] i121} 807] 87] 3L6
Southern South Atlantic | 45.1] 282) 66.8! 65.4] 581
South Central division. 22.0) SLT} 529) B04
‘Eastern South Central. 15.0) 547 || s51] 543
Western South Central: 26.1] 478) 481) 46.8

Tt appears from this table that the products raised on
farms of tenants are equivalent, in value, to one-half
(50.2 per cent) of the value of such farms; on farms
of owners the products are equivalent to less than
one-third (81.9 per cent) of the farm value. These

percentages confirm the inference already made with


82

negroes. There were 190,111 private farm-owning
negro families in 1900 and a somewhat larger number
of farm-owning families of all sorts. Thus, while the
number of negro farmers probably increased by about
36 or 38 per cent (see page 69), the number of negro
owners increased over 57 per cent, and the percentage
of ownership increased by 3.5. These percentages,
although based on figures which are not entirely com-
parable, are sufficiently exact to measure approximately
the advance toward farm ownership made by the negroes
during the decade, 1890 to 1900.

In the following table the Southern states are ar-
ranged in the order of the decreasing per cent of owned
farms:

Tame XVITI—Per cent distribution, by tenure, of the total number
of farms of negro farmers in each Southern state: 1900.

=
| PER CENT OPERATED BY—

7 7

STATE OR TERRITORY, | ‘Tenants,
ant || cash, | snare.

| -
West Vinginia ai] 26.9/) 91] 78
Gklthoma. 03) 85 76] 209
Virginia . 95] 403) 14] 40
Maryland 18] 424] “96! a28
Indian Territory O38) 42a) 71] a7
Florid 07) S00] 407] 10.2
Kentu a6} sal zo] ane
Wi us} 677] 92] 485
North 0.2) esol] 190] 49:6
Texas 01] oa2]) wo] 56.3
Districi U8} 588) 88 :
Tennesee 02) m0) gr 8
Arkansas 02) m4] a7] 40:7
South Car 02) zo] a7] azo
Mississ Ot] gol acs] aga
Lonisiana 0.1} S88] 365] 473
Taba O1) shot our] 52
Georgia. os! seo} ao] aT

This table exhibits a wide range in the percentage of
ownership in different Southern states. In the states
along the northern border of the South, including Vir-
ginia, Oklahoma and Indian Territory, and in Florida,
the per cent of owned farms is comparatively high,
varying from 40.5 in Delaware to 72 in West Virginia.
In Georgia, Alabama, Miss sippi, and Louisiana the
percentage is very low, ranging from 13.7 per ‘cent
in Georgia to 16.3 in Mississippi; in South Carolina
the percentage is somewhat higher (22.2), but is still
below the average for the country. These five states
are in the heart of the South; they comprise the greater
part of the black belt; in each of them negroes form
between 45 and 60 per cent of the total population, and
negro farmers between 35 and 60 per cent of all farmers;
collectively they contain almost one-half (47.5 per cent)
of the total negro population of the United States. In
states where negroes are’ relatively less numerous the
percentage of ownership is higher. This suggests the
inference that where the negroes are massed, tenancy
is the prevailing form of farm tenure; but it is not so
clear that we have here a direct relation of cause and
effect. These states are all cotton growing states. The
massing of negroes, tenant farming, and cotton culture

NEGROES IN THE UNITED STATES.

appear to be correlated facts, the first resulting from
the last and the second and the last acting as reciprocal
cause and effect through the crop-lien system. In
Florida, which has a percentage of negro population
(43.7) almost as high as that of Georgia (46.7), the per-
centage of ownership among colored farmers is high
(48.4), because of the greater ease of acquiring fertile
land in a newly settled state. For the same reason, in
Texas, where nine-tenths of the negro farmers make
cotton their principal crop, the per cent of ownership
(30.7), though not high, is above the average for the
country.

If we add a list of the states with the actual number
of negro owners in each we have:
Tennessee, 9,426.
Louisiana, 9,378.
Florida, 6,552.
Kentucky, 5,402.
Maryland, 2,262.
West Virginia, 534.
Delaware, 332,
District of Columbia, 5.

Virginia, 26,566.
Mississippi, 21,973.
Texas, 20,139.

South Carolina, 18,970.
North Carolina, 17,520.
Alabama, 14,110,
Arkansas, 11,941.
Georgia, 11,375.

Virginia leads, followed by Mississippi, Toxas, and
the Carolinas. In all these cases there are obvious
reasons for the large number of owners: Virginia had
developed slavery furthest and brought a larger body
of negroes to a considerable degree of culture and civil-
ization before 1861, It also bore the main brunt of war
and the breaking up of estates gave the Negroes a.
chance to buy. The Mississippi bottoms and the rising
price of cotton are attracting negro owners, and Texas.
offers the chances of the free West. North Carolina
had a thrifty free negro element, and Government
lands were sold on favorable terms in South Carolina.

Total acreage and value of owned Sarms.—Consus.
statistics of the acreage and value of farms of negro
owners as distinguished from other colored owners.
are not available, because in the reports of the Twelfth
Census the returns of the acreage of farms, the value.
of farm property and products, and the expenditure.
for labor and fertilizers were tabulated by tenure for
farms of colored farmers, but not for farms of negroes.
alone. The term “colored,” as used in the census,
includes not only negroes, but Indians, Chinese, Ji apa--
nese, and Hawaiians. Negroes, however, constitute:
more than 97 per cent of all colored farmers in con-
tinental United States, and almost 99 per cent of all
in the Southern states. ° Accordingly, in considering
continental United States or the South as a whole the
statistics relative to colored farmers may be accepted
as representing practically negro farmers.

The total acreage and total yalue of farm property
comprised in the farms owned by colored farmers are
given in Table xxx, together with the total value of
farm products and total expenditures for labor and
fertilizers. This table gives also the distribution of
those totals according to the subclasses of owned farms.
distinguished in the census classification.


92

by negroes is 46 in the former division and only 20.2
in the latter.

Another comparison may be made by ascertaining
what proportion of the farms in each class as deter-
mined by the principal source of income are cultivated
by negroes. The following table gives the percentages:

Tani XXXV.—Per cent which the farms operated by negroes form of
the total number in each group of farms classified by principal source
of income: 1960.

| PER CENT OPERATED BY NEGROES.

cxass or rans. | oontt-| sorin | goutn

North | South
Feriag | Atlantic | Atlantic| Gentrat | Central | Jesters
Gaited | aivision, division |division, |division,| .
All farms. 0.8 26,8
‘Farms reporting asprin |
cipal source of income. |
Cotton 48.9
ce. Wl
Tobacco. 13
Sugar .. 220
Vegetables: ¥ 228 O83
‘Miseelianeous prod *
ets 22.6 OL OL
5 2.3 or |
a8 so] ba |
Dairy prod 81 10:3 0.2
Flowers and plants og} 16]. | 07 0.6
Nursery products ..: oe, a6 |: jet od

From this table it appears that the negro cultivates
one-half of all the cotton farms, more than one-third of
all the rice farms, rather less than one-fifth—or, to be
more exact, two-elevenths—of the tobacco farms, and
one-seventh of the sugar farms. Of all these farms he
cultivates more than his due proportion, the negroes
constituting, it will be remembered, hardly more than
one-eighth of all the farmers in the United States. He
also cultivates a considerable proportion of the miscel-
laneous and vegetable farms. In none of the remaining
classes does his proportion come up to 4 per cent of the
totals for the United States; but in the Southern states
farms operated by negroes comprise a considerable
percentage also of the hay and grain, fruit, live stock,
and dairy farms.

In the North Atlantic states the farms of negroes in no
instance form 1 per cent of all farms for any principal
crop. They form the largest proportion in vegetable
(0.7 per cent) and nursery farms (0.6 per cent). In the
North Central states, 5.6 per cent of the few cotton
farms were cultivated by negroes, and a little over 1 per
cent of the vegetable (1.3 per cent), fruit (1.2 per cent),
tobacco (1.2 per cent), and sugar farms (1.3 per cent).
In the Western states the highest per cent, 0.6, is that
shown for farms reporting flowers and plants as the
principal source of income.

If we consider the farms of the country with refer-
ence to income, classifying them according to the value
of products not fed to live stock, we find, as would be
expected, that the negroes hold a very small propor-
tion of the farms which yield the larger incomes, and

NEGROES IN THE UNITED STATES.

a rather large proportion of the less valuable farms, ©
The percentages are as shown in the following table:

‘Tanue XXXVI.—Per cent which the farms operated by negroes form of
the total number in each group of farms classified by gross income, or
value of products not fed to live stock: 1900.

PER CENT OPERATED BY NEGROES,

CLASS OF FARMS, —/ Conti! North | south | North cou |

nental 4 Western
7 |Atlantic)Atlantic} Central | Central } 33,
Gaited jaivision,jdivision |division, atvision atvision,

All farms . 23.0]| 08

Farms reporting a }
gross income of-—

18. 0.5 1 35.9 0.2
80, 07 2. 37.0 0.8
23, Og 2. 30,8 0.2
19. 05 1 29.8 0.2
15. Oz a. 38.9 o.1

6 02 0: 20.9 OL

L7i| o1 o 10.3 OL

$2,500 and over. 2} 8 Ol 0. 38|  @)
i

3 Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent,

It appears that negroes hold one-fifth of the farms
reporting no income, somewhat less than one-third of
those reporting an income under $50, almost one-fourth
of those reporting from $50 to $100, and one-fifth of
those reporting from $100 to $250. The proportion
for farms returned as having no income is unduly
large because, as explained in the census report on agri-
culture, “‘some enumerators found great difficulty in
securing what they deemed accurate crop reports from
the negro tenants on large plantations. They obtained
the names of the tenants and the number of acres oper-
ated by each, and then secured from the owner a state-
ment of the aggregate crops raised by the several
tenants, reporting all upon the schedule of the owner.
They did not attempt to distribute the crops among the
tenants, hence the schedules for the farms of these
tenants show no crops and their farms appear in this
report as farms without income.”

Proportion of farm animals and crops on farms
operated by negroes.—The proportion of the total num-
ber of farmanimals found on farms of negroes is shown
in the following table:

Tasty XXXVII.—Per cent which the number of specified domestic

animals reported on farms operated by negroes forms of the total
number reported on all farms.

PER CENT ON FARMS OPERATED RY NEGROES,

KIND OF DOMESTIC ANT ‘ |
MALS, Conti | North | South | North | South
nental
outa] jjAtlantic|a tlantic| Central | Central
hited |/aivision.|division, division, division,
States,

‘Neat cattle. 22 a7] 01} 64
Dairy cows: Be wi; 02] 126
Other cow: 13 m1] on; 2a
Allothernenteattié;| 1:9 Bh] St) 48

8 2, . . nu
16.4 22) 08] 9:6
16 8.0] 05/ 28
0:2 oo]. 01] 41
47 16.5] 02) 16.0
84 * 105] a6) 43

2 Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent,


FARMS OPERATE

development was cut off suddenly by transportation to
the United States; and their training under slavery
was not such as to make the masses comprehend the
meaning of the best type of family life. It is, there-
fore, peculiarly hopeful to note the improvement in
housing which recent years have brought.

The farm equipment.—Naturally when the farmer is
poorly housed the beast often is not housed’ at: all, and
proper storehouses for crops are usually wanting.

Farm tools and implements on farms operated by |
negroes are few in number, old fashioned, and very
simple. The indispensable implement is the hoe, sup-

Taste VIL—VALUE OF SPECIFIED CLASSES OF LIV:

ALL LIVE Stock

D BY NEGROES. 73
plemented by hand muscle; the one-mule plow is needed,
but isnot indispensable. Outside of these, negroes have
very little machinery and few implements. Reapers
and mowers are seldom found. There are a few cotton
gins, but the utilization of steampower and the intro-
duction of the automatic system of handling seed cotton
have crowded most of the small gins out of business.

Live stock on farms.—The value of live stock on
farms includes that of domestic animals, poultry, and
bees. The values of these classes of live stock on farms
of negroes in 1900, by geographic divisions, were as
follows:

‘E STOCK ON FARMS OF NEGRO FARMERS: 1900.

DOMESTIC ANIMALS, vounrry, | RES.
I || arms report. | ’ ‘Farms report- | Farms report: | Cr
Total |} Per ing. Value. ing. Value, | ing. | Value,
DIVISION, number Per | |
offarms.|! yame, | “Sr — po oe ne
| total _ Average Per |avemso| . Per | Averuge
hyumbex| ©? 7 per farin|ly, cent || erfurmi} Num- | een per farm,
value /wumber] Sfih | Total. [REEF Alhsumber, Mt | rota, report | der. | ofall} Tel |report-
| | fms, ing, farms, ing. | farms, ng.
Continental U.S ..} 746,716 |/$84, 936,215 | 100.0 |] 690,020 | 92.6 |!g80, 855,949 | si17.18 $8,903,250 | $6.87 | 28, 484
3,751 || 439,250 | 0.5 407,298 | 255. 84 28,908 | 20.27 54
a8 | ABS | ee 28 a8 | EE [one
444, 499 |} 57,2341 258 | 674 54, 694, 880 | 182.79 2,481, 022 17,078 6.85
Western... 337 | 184,726 | 0.2 117,985 | 57.79 6,295 pt 98.15

In 1900 about nine-tenths of all farms operated by
negroes in continental United States reported domestic
animals, and about eight-tenths reported poultry. The
South Central division reported about two-thirds of all
capital invested in live stock. Vor each class of live
stock the highest average value per farm is shown for
the Western division, followed in order by the North
Atlantic and North Central divisions, which are far
above the averages for continental United States; the
South Central, which is a little above; and the South
Atlantic, which is considerably below.

The numbers of specified domestic animals on farms
of negroes in continental United States in 1900, with
the number of farms reporting each kind of animal,
were as follows. .

Taupe VIL.—Domestic animals on farms of negro farmers in conti- |
nental United States: 1900.

FARMS REPORTING. I ommen OF ANIMALS,

OMENS ANNALS. Por cent | Average

Number. of all |} Total, | Per farm
farms. tng.

Neat cattle.. 401,161] 68.7 | 1,457,008 3.6

Ba1,747 | 45.8 || "558,101 16

342,382 | 45.9) 576,525 17

B47,214 | 46.5] 502,807 4

807 OL 1,404 16

5,672 0.8] 97,560 m3

518}180| 68.7 j| 2,968,074 68

Goats 9,055 1.2] "62,688 6.9

|

2 Including lambs,

It is evident that on farms of negro farmers, swine
are more common than any other domestic animals,
being reported for more than two-thirds of the total
number of such farms. Dairy cows were reported for |

rather less than one-half of the furms, and the average
number indicates that comparatively few of the farms
reporting could have had more than two dairy cows,
the majority probably having only one. The figures
for mules and horses are about the same as those for
dairy cows. Only a very small number of farms re-
ported other domestic animals.

There is an understatement of the number of negro
farms reporting mules and horses, due to the fact that
mules and horses on many farms operated by negro
tenants were owned by the proprietor of the land, and
were reported by him on his own farm. Moreover,
since the proprietor was in almost all ‘cases a white man
this reduced the number of these animals credited to
the farms of negroes.

The following table presents by geographic divisions
the per cent of farms reporting the specified kinds of
domestic animals with the average number per farm
and the per cent of the total number in each division:
Tawtw VILL.—Per cent of the farms of negro farmers reporting speci-

fied domestic animals, with the average number of animals per farm

und the per cent of the lotad number in each geographic division: 1900.

PER CENT OF FARMS REPORTING.

jase |
piviston, | Neat | Dairy | ronses, oy 424 |sheep.t| Swine. | Goats,
roa,
Continental |
U8.

North Atlantic .
South Atiantic -
North Central

South Central
Western

Mncluding lambs, * Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent.


CLASSIFICATION BY TENURE. 89

reference to comparative productiveness of tenants’ and
owners’ farms, as measured by the ratio of value of
products to value of property. The greatest difference
between owner and tenant is in the general methods of
farming; the owner seeks more to preserve the native
powers of the soil, and consequently does not raise as
large crops by wasteful and forcing methods; his crops
are more diversified, and he cultivates more articles for
home consumption; more of his capital is put into per-
manent improvements and less into. seed, fertilizers,
and hired labor.

The average values per farm and per acre of products
of 1899 not fed to live stock are presented in the follow-
ing table:

Taste XXXI.—Average values, per farm and per acre, of the products
not fed to live stock for farms of negro, Indian, and Mongolian
farmers: 1899.

DIVISION. | | tenants.

Own- | Mana- _

ers, | gers.
All, || Cash. | Share,
Continental United States....... 27s | 045} $920) seat) gait
South Atlantic division ... 228} 508] 205 |} gat 208
Northern South Atlanti im| 547} 246 || 200 ot
Southern South Atlantic + 252} 680 | 300 || 288 813
South Central division . 330] 1,449] 328 || 850 08
Eastern South Central 307] _"oa4} 329 || 845 307
‘Western South Central. B51] 2,267] 828 || 863 309

AVERAGE VALU! CRE FOR FARMS

DIVISION. ‘Tenants.
Own- | Mana-
ers. | gers.
AML || Cash, | Share,
Continental United States....... $3.59 | $3.40 96.87 | $7.32
South Atlantic division. 4.29] 2.89 5.0L] 6.84
Northern South Atlai 4.49] 4:00 8.36} 8.60
Southern South Atlantic 401} 251 5.18] 6.86
South Central division . 8.75] 8.97 8.07} 8.59
Bastern South Centr 4.00] 8.72 7.79 | 8.93
Western South Central 8.56 | 4.06 8.90} 8.25

The average production per farm is higher for ten-
ants than for owners in each minor geographic division

except the Western South Central, in which, it will be |

remembered, the farms of owners represent a much
greater average value of property than the farms of
tenants (Table xxv). The average value of products
per farm for share tenants is higher than that for cash
tenants in the two South Atlantic divisions, but lower in
the two South Central divisions. The averages per acre
* are affected to a considerable extent by the proportion
of acreage improved. A farm in which most of the
land is improved will naturally produce more per acre
than one in which the proportion of improved land is
smaller. It is not surprising, then, to find that in the
South Central divisions, where about 75 per cent of
the tenants’ acreage is improved and only about 45 per
cent of the owners’ (Table xxrv), the average value of

products per acre is more than twice as high for ten-
ants as for owners. In the Southern South Atlantic
division a similar, though less marked, contrast exists,
but in the Northern South Atlantic division both the
per cent of improved acreage and the average value of
products per acre are lower for tenants than for owners.

General conclusions.—Several things are noticeable
in regard to tenure: First, the percentage of tenancy in
most of the Southern states and especially in Alabama,
Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi is high; second,
those states with a relatively large percentage of
owners—Texas, Virginia, Delaware, District of Colum-
bia, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia—
have in nearly all cases fewer cash tenants, or renters,
than share tenants, or metayers, showing that it is as
easy to pass directly from share tenancy to ownership
as to stop at the intermediate stage. The District of
Columbia and Florida are‘exceptions to this rule because
of market gardening of the District and the peculiar
crops of Florida. On the other hand, where the per-
centage of ownership is small, the tendency often is for
the cash renters to outnumber the metayers and thus
secure the differential advantages by assuming the
greater risk. This is shown by the figures for Ala-
bama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, where the
renters exceed the metayers, and the same tendency is
manifest, though less marked, in Georgia, Louisiana,
Arkansas, and Tennessee. North Carolina stands be-
tween the owning and tenant states.

In all these divisions there are certain points brought
out by comparing the renters and metayers. The
metayers usually excel in the value per acre of their
produce, not counting that fed to live stock. This
means that the metayer’s chief object is to get a large
crop, and that this crop often represents a forcing of
the natural productiveness of the soil and a neglect of
stock raising. Consequently, as we should expect, the
renters in most cases have more stock. In the centers
of negro population the renter also has better tools to
work with. On the other hand, the metayer is apt to
have a-better home. At first sight this seems illogical,
but it most probably means that the strain of a rising
social class, as the renters are, falls often on home com-
forts. They economize here, living in the old one-room
cabin, and eating and dressing meagerly until they can
buy land. The metayer, on the other hand, may have
his home repaired at the owner’s expense, or, having
no intention of buying land, may not deny himself many
available comforts. Certain differences, too, are mani-
fest between the East and West—i. e., between the
North and South Atlantic states on the one hand and
the North and South Central states on the other. In
the West the land of the renter is the more valuable.
In the East that of the metayers is the more valuable,
although this is not wholly true in the North Atlantic
states. At any rate, taking into account all the farm
property, the renter is noticeably the richer in the
West, and the metayer, in the North. Both these


THE FARMING BLACK BELT. 95

Tapie XLUL—Per cent which the value of products not fed to live stock
forms of the total value of farm property on farms of white and of
negro farmers in each geographic division: 1900.

Farms of
negro
farmers.

Farms of
DIVISION. i

Continental United States.

North Atlantic
South Atlantic

North Central :
South Gentral 47.5
Western ... 16.3

The total value of products raised on farms of negroes
in continental United States is equivalent to 46 per cent
of the total value of the farm property; the correspond-
ing per cent fot white farmers is 17.7.

If we restrict the comparison to the Southern divisions
the difference is not so marked; for negro farmers the
value of products not. fed to live stock approaches one-
half the value of their farm property, while for white
farmers it is only about one-fourth. The following
table presents the percentages for each of the Southern
states:

Taiz XLIIL.—Per cent which the value of products not fed to live stock

forms of the total value of farm property on farms of white and of
negro farmers in each Southern state: 1900.

Farms | Farms Yas | Ratms
o ol 3
DIVISION AND STATE DIVISION AND STATE
oe tunmiony. | White | negro | "Spinenrmony. | White | negro
ers, | ers. ers, | ors,
South Atlanticdivision| 25.1 | 48.6 || SouthCentral diviston|
Northern South At- Eastern South Gen-
antic. yw.) 30.2 tral. | 2
Delaware wil 19.6 Kentucky 21.5) 27.
Maryland.» w.0} 19.9 ‘Tennesse 28] 36.2
Distriet of Golam Alabama | ato} 74
dia 74] 57. Mississipp’ 2) 867 | Ba
Virein: 217 | 35.0 |
West Virginia ¥.9) 20.2] Western gout Gen-
Southern South At- | .
antic... 33,5 | 63.6 Louisiana
rikansus
‘North Carolin 32.0] 47.1 indian Territory’:
South Carolini 846] 56.0 ‘Oklahoma
corgi 36.2| 65.8 'eXOS ...
Florida. m4 | 49.8

It will be found that the contrast between the two
percentages is greatest in the states having a large negro
population. They are most of them cotton growing
states, in which the great majority of negro farmers are
tenants, cultivating land owned by white landlords.

These. percentages, however, are not to be accepted
as a criterion of the relative profitableness of farming
as carried on by the tworaces. Itis true that theaverage
values of products per acre presented in Table xxx1x
indicate that a given area of agricultural land located
in the black belt of the South and farmed by negro
tenants yields a greater value than an equal area culti-
vated by white farmers outside the black belt. This
larger return to the negro farmer does not necessarily
prove that he is a superior farmer to the white culti-
vator, any more than the larger return of the negro

tenant is evidence of his greater prosperity as compared
with the negro owner. It shows rather different con-
ditions of farming. First there come considerations as

| tothe form in which the farmer gets his returns; some
| get it in marketable products, others in live stock,

others in improved homes and social advantages. The
white farmer gets fewer products, but more live stock,
a better house anda more advantageously situated home;
the negro farmer must raise goods easily sold, so as to
turn over his small capital quickly. For these returns
the white farmer invests principally his cash capital,
land, and experience; the negro invests his labor, skill,
and his capital as represented in his mule and seed.
Thus each is investing his resources for such returns as
they will bring and such as he values.

FARM OWNERSHIP AND THE FARMING BLACK BELT.

In another portion of this bulletin what is commonly
termed the black belt has been described in the text and
its geographic position defined and illustrated by means
of maps. In this connection it will be appropriate to
consider what may be termed the farming black belt,
consisting of those county areas in which negro farmers
constitute one-half or more than one-half of all farmers.
This will differ from the population black belt princi-
pally in leaving out of account the influence of the
urban population. Map 9 shows the farming black belt.
With a view to determining what influence, if any, the
massing of negroes may have upon the form of farm
tenure, two other maps have been prepared, Map 10
showing, for the Southern states exclusive of Okla-
homa and Indian Territory, those counties in which
the farms owned by negroes form 50 per cent or more
of all farms operated by negroes, and Map 11 showing
for the same states those counties having 300 or more
farms owned by negroes.

Considering these maps together, it will be noticed
that the largest proportion of ownership is often
outside the black belt while the larger number of
owners is usually in that region. In Alabama, e. g.,
the farming black belt extends across the south central
half of the state; here the proportion of negro to all
farmers rises to 75 per cent or more in eleven counties,
Here the relative number of owners among the black
farmers is usual]y smaller than elsewhere in the state.
The absolute number of negro owners is, however, larg-
est in this belt, so that if we mark the counties with 300
or more negro owners we find that these counties are
nearly all in the farming black belt. Mere numbers, of
course, will not explain land ownership or the lack of it.
In many counties where the proportion of ownership
among negro farmers is large, the figures are of little
significance as the number of negroes in those counties
is very small. The real question is, what are the sur-
rounding influences of the black farmer. In six of the
black belt counties where the negro population is densest
the illiteracy of the adult males reaches 66 per cent or


COMPARISON OF WHITE

more than two-sevenths of the farms, over one-seventh
of the acreage, and one-ninth of the total farm prop-
erty, and raise one-fifth of the farm products measured
by value. They hire one-tenth of the farm labor meas-
ured in wages, and use over one-fifth of the fertilizers.
In the South Central division they hold a smaller propor-
tion of the total number of farms and of the total acre-
age, but their proportion of the total farm property
and farm products is about the same as in the other
division. They spend as much relatively for labor but
less for fertilizers.

If we consider the figures by states we may get addi-
tional light. Over one-half the farms in Louisiana,
Mississippi, arid South Carolina are conducted by ne-
groes; between one-third and one-half in Alabama and
Georgia; and between one-fourth and one-third in Vir-
ginia, Arkansas, and Florida. Mississippi has nearly
one-third of its total farm acreage under negro farmers,
and Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and South Carolina
have from one-fifth to one-third of their acreage. Of
the total value of farm property negroes control two-
fifths in Mississippi, more than one-fourth in Alabama
and South Carolina, and about one-fifth in Louisiana
and Georgia. Of farm products measured by value
negroes raise more than one-half in Mississippi, two-
fifths in South Carolina, and from one-fourth to one-
third in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Arkansas.
It is evident, then, that in a large section of the South,
and notably in the Gulf states, agricultural industry is
dependent to a very large degree upon the cooperation
of the negro farmer, leaving out of account the services
of the negro farm laborer.

Proportion of classified farms operated by negroes.—
The following table shows the proportion of farms
operated by negroes in each class of tenure:

Tanne XXXIIL—Per cont which farms operated by negroes form of
the total number of farms in each class of tenure: 1900.

cass oF vans. | Conti North | South | North | South
Fentl | Atlantic! Atiantie| Central | Gentrat | Western
'ed | Aivision. division, division. division | @'¥ision,

03| 29.9 0.6) 26.8 0.2
0.2; 447 O4) 10.8 O14
o4} B04 O7) 16.0 OL
O1 8.0 05 64 OL
05] 106 0.6 6.2 OL
05]. 58.2 Os] 69.8 o.1
O3}° 404 Og] 342 0.2

As would be expected, the proportion of negroes is
largest among tenant farmers; and it is interesting to
note that it is larger among cash tenants than among
share tenants. For each class of tenure the per cent of
farms operated by negroes is naturally highest in the
Southern divisions. For cash tenants it is slightly

AND COLORED FARMERS. 91

higher in the South Central states than in the South
Atlantic, but for all other classes the South Atlantic
shows the higher proportion—a natural result of the
fact that negro farmers are more numerous in that
division in proportion to the white.

The position of the negro farmer will be better under-
stood if we separate the farms according to size.’ The
following table shows the percentage of the farms of
specified area cultivated by negroes:

Tanun XXXIV.—Per cent which the farms operated ty negroes form
of the total number in each group of farms classified by area: 1900.

cuass OF Fans, | Conti: | North | South | North | South,
Pentel | atlantic| Atluntic | Gentral | Contra | Western
inited |! division. | division, | division. | division. | 7
States,

‘Allfnrms..... 29.9 a6} ms} 02
Under 3 acres 0. 46.0 13 0.2
3 and under 1 0.8] 60.2 20 | 0.2
19 and under? 0.6] 466 21 OL
20 and under 4] 456 13 | Or
50 and under 100 8 0.2] 25.0 4 OL
Joo and under 175.) 4.7 o1] 158 0.2 02
175 and under 260°) 8.4 o1] and 0.2 OL
260 and under 600::| 2:3 0.1 74 04 O.1
500 and underi,000-| 2:0 1 e1 O41 O.1
1,000 and over.-...,| v1 L 8.8 ot 1

Comparing the above percentages for the United
States as a whole we may make three classes of farms:
Of the large farms, containing 100 acres and above, the
negro cultivates only a small proportion—from 1 to 5
percent. Of the small market gardens and other farms
under 38 acres, and of the middle-sized farms of from 50
to 100 acres, he cultivates about 10 per cent, which is
less than his proper proportion. On the other hand,
he cultivates a relatively large proportion—between 22
and 30 per cent—of the farms from 3 to 50 acres in
extent.

In the South Atlantic states the negro cultivates
nearly one-half of all farms under 50 acres; one-fourth
of those from 50 to 100 acres, and a diminishing pro-
portion of the farms above that size. The negro farm-
ers constitute 30 per cent of all farmers in this division,
and therefore have more than their proportion of the
farms under 50 acres, but less than their proportion of
the farms over 50 acres.

In the South Central states a little more than one-
fourth of all farms are in the hands of negroes. The
proportion is smaller—about one-fifth—tor the garden-
farm class, under 3 acres, and for the two-mule farms
of 50 to 100 acres; but it is very much larger for farms
between 3 and 50 acres. As in the South Atlantic divi-
sion, the percentages diminish rapidly as the sizes of
farms increase above 50 acres.

For each class of farms the per cent cultivated by
negroes is higher in the South Atlantic states than in
the South Central; but the difference is most marked

for farms under 8 acres, of which the per cent cultivated


86

Colored owners, while constituting, in 1900, 26.9 per
cent of all colored farmers, cultivated 38.3 per cent of
the total farm acreage under colored control, but only
.8 per cent of the improved acreage. This means
that their farms were considerably larger than those
of tenants, although comprising but little more im-
proved acreage. The contrast is most marked in the
Western South Central states, where the owners, oper-
ating 28.1 per cent of all farms, had £9.2 per cent of
the total acreage and 36.1 per cent of the improved
acreage: in other words, in this division owners had
not only a much larger total acreage in proportion to
the number of their farms than tenants, but also a con-
siderably larger improved acreage. In the Northern
South Atlantic division, on the other hand, the owners’
proportion of acreage, both total and improved, fell
below their proportion of farms.

The following table gives the percentage which the
improved acreage forms of the total acreage for each
main class of tenure:

27,

Tante XNIV.—Per cent of the total acreage improved in farms of
negro, Indian, and Mongolian farmers classified by tenure: 1900.

|
| PER CENT OF THY TOTAL ACREAGE
IMPROVED IN FARMS OF—

DIVISION.

‘Tenants,
Own. | Mana- _
| en. | gers.
| | all. | cash, Share.
—.

Continental United States .. 63.8 | 72.8
South Atlantic division... 611] 583 .
Northern South Atlant bi7]) sae | 8k3
Southern South Atlantic extol sod} 685
South Central division msl mo} om
Eastern South Central mol aa] Be
Western South Central | 72] 7.4] 79.8

Attention has just been called to the fact that owners,
while operating larger farms than tenants, have hardly
more improved acreage. It follows, of course, that
they have less improved acreage in proportion to the
size of their farms. The difference is shown in the
above table, the per cent which, in continental United
States, the improved land forms of the total acreage
being 42.2 for farms of owners and 68.8 for farms of
tenants. A similar difference prevails in each of the
main and minor geographic divisions of the South,
except the Northern South Atlantic, in which the per
cent of the total acreage improved on farms of owners
slightly exceeds that on farms of tenants. This divi-
sion, it will be remembered, is exceptional also in show-
ing smaller farms for owners than for tenants. In
general, the small farm is more fully improved than
the large.

Of the two classes of tenants, cash tenants; operating
larger farms than share tenants, have the lower per
cent of improved acreage, so that, as regards the per-
centage of improved land, tenants rank above owners
and share tenants above cash tenants. A reason for

NEGROES IN THE UNITED STATES.

this difference is stated in the following extract from

the Report on Agriculture:'
‘The very high per cent of improved land in the tenant farms of
the South arises from the fact that land in that.section is leased

mainly for raising crops. Originally, great areas of land in the
South were held in large plantations and operated by slave labor.
After emancipation that form of labor was superseded by some
form of contract leasehold, by which the former slaves or wage
laborers were given charge of small tracts of improved land, upon
which they were to raise crops. The tracts thus leased included
only the improved land of the old plantations, while the land
retained by the plantation owners was mostly unimproved. ‘This
explains the exceptionally high per cent of improved land in farms
of tenants and the correspondingly low per cent in those of owners
and managers. The same general relation between the lands of
owners and tenants exists in all parts of the country. A lange
proportion of tenant farms are but parts of larger farms once oper-
ated by their owners, who, with advancing years, lease the larger
portion of their cultivable land to tenants, retaining the woodland
and partially improved lands as their own farms,

In many sections of the South the small renter takes
nothing but actually cultivated land. His rent, whether
in money or kind, is generally, and over large areas
invariably, per acre. Consequently it is to his interest
to rent not one barren or idle acre, and the result is
that large numbers of rented tracts are 100 per cent
improved. Generally speaking, it is only the owners
or renters of large bodies of land who have any con-
siderable woodland or other land unimproved. Under
the share system the interests of the landlord as woll
as the tenant demand that every acre rented be pro-
ductive land. This probably explains the fact that the
per cent of improved acreage is higher for share than
for cash tenants.

Table xxv gives the average total and the average
improved acreage per farm for each main class of tenure
Tasun XXV.— Average tolal and improved acreage in furms of negro,

Indian, and Mongolian farmers classified by tentire: 1900.

DIvistoy. ‘Tenants,
Own. | Mena-
em, | ger
All, Cash. | Share.
Continental United States .. 7 278 45 8 Z Az
South Atlantic division .. -
Northern South Atlantic 3 i * Py %
Southern South Atlantic 60 250 52 56 49
South Central division...
Hastern South Central” =| 3) 8] 8)
Western South Centra | to] a) at] = #

AVERAGE IMPROVED ACREAGE FOR

FARMS OF—
DIVISION. ~
‘Tenants,
Own- | Mana-
, ers, | gers,
All. || Cash. | share.

Continental United States...

South Allantic division .. 2{ 69] 38 33

Northern South Atlantic. 2

Sti an Ani a] a) 8] &)
South Central division.

Eastern South Central Ht 80 Bd ®

‘Western South Central, 43 u7 29 8 3

‘Twelfth Census, Vol. V, page Lacxii,


78

the other three di
but slightly from those for continental United States.

The history of the treatment of the soil by both white |
and negro farmers in the South is simple. At first the
plun followed was to wear out the soil by successive
crops and then clear new land. This led toa southward
and westward moyement of lund culture, in the path of
which, from Virginia to Mississippi, lay a trail of worn-
out, waste land. Such land was allowed to rest until
the close of the Civil War, when commercial fertilizers
were introduced to restore it.

A. system of simple crop rotation has now been intro-
duced here and there. Not much use is made of animal
manures, as stock is not usually stalled. Although the
expenditure for fertilizers is not a very good index
of the amount of effort being made to restore the nat-
ural powers of the soil, the figures are of considerable
value as showing the direction of much of this effort.

The average expenditures for fertilizers show very
high figures for the Atlantic states and very low ones |

ions the averages per acre differed |

»—PER CENT DISTRIBUTION, BY GEOGRAPHIC

y.

NEGROES IN THE UNITED STATES.

for the Central and the Western. This may be due in

| part to a difference in the character of farming, but the

principal explanation is probably to be found in the
worn-out condition of the land in the East, referred to
above.

Geographic distribution.—The differences in the con-
ditions surrounding the negro farmer in the several geo-
graphic divisions described in the preceding sections of
this chapter are virtually summarized in Table xv which
shows, for each item, the per cent distribution of the
total for continental United States by geographic
divisions. This table makes it possible to determine
whether, in any division, the proportion for a given
item is greater or less than that division’s proportion
of the total number of negro farms. For example, the
South Central division reported 59.5 per cent of all
farms operated by negroes, and only 56.7 per cent of
the total value of buildings on such farms; hence the
negro’s investment in buildings in the South Central
division is relatively low.

DIVISIONS, OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF FARMS OF

RO FARMERS, TOTAL ACREAGE, TOTAL VALUES OF FARM PROPERTY AND PRODUCTS, AND TOTAL

EXPENDITURES FOR LABOR AND FERTILIZERS.
PER CENT DISTRIBUTION,
| Acreage. Value of fnrm property. Expenditures: 1490,
crow. i ~| 7 Value of
DIVISION, otal || Land products
number |) ana i Imple- oF 1509
of farms,|) In- Build- | ments | Live |} not fe ertili-
Total. | ya, || Total, (Haas, | “ings. Jandma-| stock, || tlie || anor, | Met
i build: chinery, mock
i ings).
Continental United States, 300.0], 1000 200.0
North Atlantic 0.2) 02) 02
88.6 407] 80
ve} 21] “a
sa5 | 508) 59.3
o1 a2} or

1 Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent,

THE NEGRO TENANT. i}

Classizication of furms by tenure.—Conditions of
farm tenure haye much to do, of course, with farm
methods in general. In the reports of the Twelfth
Census six different varieties of tenure are distin- |
guished and used as a basis for classification of farm
statistics. They comprise farms operated by owners,
by part owners, by owners and tenants, by managers,
by cash tenants, and by share tenants, The terms here
used may be defined as follow “Owners” in the nar-
Tower sense of the term are those farmers owning all
the land comprised in their farms; “part owners” are
those owning a partof the land in their farms and rent-
ing a part; the term ‘owners and tenants” is used to
designate farmers jointly cultivating the same farm,

part of it, and the other or

one owning the land, ora
others owning no part, but receiving for supervision

or labor a share of the products; “managers” aré per-
sons employed by the owner to cultivate the farm in
return for a fixed salary; ‘cash tenants” are farmers
paying for the use of the land a cash rental or a fixed
amount of labor or farm produce; “share tenants” pay
as rental a stated share of the products.

The farms operated by owners, part owners, and
owners and tenants may be regarded as constituting
the owned farms, those operated by cash or share ten-
ants constituting, of course, the rented farms. Of the
746,715 farms of negroes in continental United States
in 1900, 187,797. or 25.2 per cent of the total, were
owned farms, and 557,174, or 74.6 per cent, rented
farms—the remainder, 1,744, or 0.2 per cent of the
total, being operated by managers,

The following table shows the distribution, by tenure,

of farms operated by negroes in each mai i
division: = ° v Beographie


98

on Map 11, but most of the counties in which the per
cent of ownership exceeds 50 lie farther west.

In Virginia, negro farmers are most numerous from
the lower Potomac southwest to Mecklenburg county,
on the North Carolina line, including the section around
Richmond and Petersburg; there are 19 counties in
which more than one-half of the farms are operated
by negroes. Negro owners of farms are numerous
throughout the state, probably because of opportunity
Jong open to the race to secure land, and to some extent
because of good educational facilities.

NEGROES IN THE UNITED STATES.

In West Virginia no section presents a high propor-
tion of negro farmers. They are scattered in small
numbers over the state, and generally own the farms
they operate. .

The relationship of density of negro population to
land ownership can best be shown by taking certain
typical states and grouping their counties according
to the percentage of negro farmers: let Alabama rep-
resent the gulf states; Texas, the southwest; South
Carolina, the Atlantic seaboard; and Virginia, the
border states. We have then the following table:

Taste XLIV.—PERCENTAGE OF FARM OWNERSHIP AMONG NEGRO FARMERS, IN COUNTIES GROUPED ACCORD-

L TO THE PERCENTAGE OF NEGRO FARMERS
STATES,

AMONG ALL FARMERS; FOR SELECTED SOUTHERN

(COUNTIES IN WHICH TWO-THIRDS OR MORE

OF ALL FARMERS ARE NEGRO. OF ALL FARMERS AIK NEGRO,

TWO-THIRDS OF ALL FARMERS ARB NEGRO.

| cour + 0N!

|
Per cent |

Per cent cent |! Per cent Per cont

Per cent ‘hich Per cent ‘whieh | whieh

. 1 Num | whieh | 9, whieh | Num: | which - | Num: |owhieh | sua. | Nea
_ EuvGi | Deter | meg | Now| ABS, | ees | evo) ego | Nowe] Zax, | News| borai| nowwo | Nee; | een,
coun: | Wyre | form‘og | neato | orm of } coun- | Rest? | farmers | negro | form of | conn | BPO | HEMEN | eer form ot

ties, | "eT altarm-/oWners) all “|) ties, | frM- | form of lovers, ty | Hes | Fors” fall farm. owners nity
16 | 27,742 47.1 | 5,382 19.4 87 | 14,480 M4] 4,486 40,7
22 | 25, 447 45.2 | 7,524 29.6 219 | 36,125 1: 11, 188 80.8
25 | 58, 047 56.2 | 8,942 16.9 3, 755 1, 667 17.9
46 | 31,999 47.4 | 19,151 59. 72 | 12,796 67,7

In the gulf states like Alabama the proportion of
owners among negro farmers is largest in those coun-
ties where two-thirds or more of the farmers are white,
and smallest in the counties where two-thirds or more
of the farmers are black. This is due to the profitable-
ness of tenant farming in the cotton belt, the concen-
tration of land ownership there, and the general lack
of any inspiring or uplifting influences. Illiteracy in
these counties is very great, and historic conditions
unfavorable. Whenever these influences are counter-
acted by educational institutions, as in parts of Ala-
bama, or by new cheap land, as along the Red river in
Louisiana, the proportion of ownership increases. The
negro owners of the gulf states are largely concen-
trated in the lighter portions of the black belt—that is,
in regions where from one-third to two-thirds of the
farmers are black—the number of owners here among
negroes being larger than in the white belts or the
blackest: portions of the black belt.

In western states like Texas the region of the largest

proportion of black farmers is the region of the largest ||

proportion of owners. This is because land is cheap
and plentiful and the large plantation system of the
past was never fully developed here.

In states like South Carolina we have again owner-
ship and a dense black population in the same localities,
but this is for a different reason—viz, government aid
in the securing of lands directly after the war.

In the older border states like Virginia the percentage

of ownership is high and does not appear to be much
affected by concentration of negro population; this is
because Virginia has turned in later years to crops which
the tenant system of farming does not make profitable,
and because of unusual educational facilities for negroes.

The validity of these comparisons is somewhat im-
paired by the fact that in the black belt, under the sys-
tem of tenant farming, a very large number of persons
must be classed as farmers by the census who are in
reality little more than laborers. This decreasos the
apparent proportion of negro owners.

‘Thus it may be seen that a detailed study of owner-
ship, state by state and county by county, reveals no
hard and fast relation of the number of negro land-
owners to the black belt. We may, however, easily
distinguish in the black belt two kinds of conditions:
In the one case, the region is a black belt because
economic conditions are favorable and the negroes
migrate to or remain in the region, and enjoy there
a fair degree of agricultural prosperity. In the other
case the economic conditions are less favorable but
they render emigration difficult by providing little
education for the negroes, and by a general resort to
the crop-lien system, under which the acquisition of
landed property by negroes is impeded by the high
value of the land. Sometimes these two sets of condi-
tions are combined in the same region; sometimes they
are separate, forming two belts of widely different
economic prosperity.


FARMS OPERATED BY NEGROES.

Southern states in the average value of products per
farm, ranks eleventh in the average value of farm prop-
erty. The principle that the greater the value ‘of the
products or gross income the greater the value of the
farm may hold good of farms in the same locality, but
apparently it does not apply to farms located in differ-
ent states or sections, which represent, it may be, radi-
cal differences in crops, methods, and costs of farming
and other conditions. Nor does the value of products
constitute a reliable index of the economic condition of
the farmer. It represents only the gross income, out
of which come rent, if the farmer is a tenant, and the
expenses of operating the farm.

The productivity of farms of negroes as measured by
the average value of products per acre is highest in the
North Atlantic division; the South Central division
ranks next to the North Atlantic in this respect and
shows averages considerably higher than those for the
South Atlantic.

On farms in the South a small percentage of return
in products may sometimes be a distinct sign of prosper-
ity; the land owned by negroes is usually the less fertile,
worn-out tracts, and in such cases it is possible that a
negro farmer putsa large part of his effort into restor-
ing the soil and making permanent improvements in
buildings, fences, etc. The result would be smaller
and less valuable crops but a better and more valuable
farm which would in time yield better returns than the
tenant farm, where the object is to get the largest
present crop.

So, too, in the North this relatively low “‘ per cent not
fed to value of farm property” probably reflects the
fact that a considerable part of the higher farm values in
that region represents permanent improvements, which
yield a small but continuous return. In general it will
be found that this percentage shows a tendency to
decrease as the average value of farm property in-
creases.’

Farms classified by value of products.—In the follow-
ing table the farms operated by negroes in continental
United States and in the main geographic divisions are
classified by the value of products of 1899 not fed to
live stock:

Taste X.—Farms of negro farmers classified according to gross income,
or value of products of 1899 not fed to live stock.

NUMBER OF FARMS IN EACH CLASS.

Conti: |! orth | South | North | South | West-

cuass or varus, | BONA | atlantic | atlantic | Central | Central | em ai-

Yaited | division. | division. division, division, vision.

‘Ail farms. =| 746,715 || 1,761} 287,988 | 12,255 | 444,429 | 397
Farms reporting a
‘gross income of—

. 10,379 ye] 2,40) asa} 7,792 W
$1 and ander #6: 4 95} 97,170| 792) 23,709 2%
$50 and under $160-..-"| 73,015, ais | 33,320 | 1,544 | 92/308, at

247,477 598 | 102,995 | 4/169 | 140; 304, a

" 452 | 87,552 | 3,100 | 103,33 a

; 270,| 26,498 | 3,690 | “66, 996 BL

34,220, ar] “s\5a8| “658 | 95867 36

$2,500 and over. 835 M4 201 70 | "540 10

igee Table 60, giving figures by states.

75

TaBum X.—Farms of negro farmers classified according to gross income,
or value of products of 1899 not fed to Live stock—Continued.

PER CENT WHICH NUMBER OF FARMS IN EACH CLASS FORMS OF
TOTAL NUMBER.

Conti- North |

Cont: | North | South south | West.
crass or ranns, | Jt! | atlantic | Atlantic | Central | Central | ern di-
States, || division. | division, division, division,| vision.

~ Allfarms .. 100.0 | 100.0 100.0 |

Farms reporting a [~
‘gross income of—

100.0

18 5.0
$1 and under $50 - BL a8
$50 and under $100 - 74 9.2
$100 and under $256, ale] 27.0
$250 and under $500 36.7) 22:0
$500 and under $1,064 W1) IL
$1,000 and under $2,5 22) od
$2,600 and over. O41 3.0

reported value of products not fed to live stock was be-
tween $100 and $250; on another third it was between
$250 and $500. The majority of the farms composing
the remaining third yielded less than $100, but a con-.
siderable number—rather more than one-seventh of all
farms—yielded over $500. The return of farms with-
out income covers accidents, crop failures, crop liens,
and certain defects in the reports of the enumerators.

In every division—except the Western—more than
half the farms were in the two groups reporting an in-
come of between $100 and $500; but this concentration
was most marked in the two Southern divisions, in each
of which these groups included two-thirds of the total
number of farms.

The most productive farms—those yielding over
$500—constituted a larger proportion of the total num-
ber in each of the Northern divisions and also in the
Western division, than in either of the Southern; but
the farms yielding incomes under $100, while more
numerous in proportion to the total number in the
Northern divisions than in the South Central division,
were most numerous in the South Atlantic division,
where they constituted over one-fifth of all farms.

Comparing the two Southern divisions, we find that each
of the four groups of farms yielding over $250 was repre-
sented bya larger percentage in the South Central divi-
sion than in the South Atlantic, and that the total number
of farms in these groups makes up 54.3 per cent of all
farms in the former division and 40.9 per centin the latter.

Crops.—The acreage and production of the principal
crops raised on farms of negro farmers in 1899 were as
follows:

Tapie XI.—Acreage and production of specified crops on farms of negro
Farmers in continental United States: 1899.

FARMS REPORT-

ACRES. QUANTITY PRODUCED.

cror. Av ll oitor Av.
cragel] Unit o! erage

per |jmeasure| Total. |"per

acre.

‘Wheat
Hay and forage.
Oats... ;

te Soke

‘Tobacco.
Sweet potatoes
Rice .

PeabeSobeaso
SHovecin Aas H

1 Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent.


4

Tanne VILL.—Per cent of the farms of negro farmers reporting speci-
fied domestic animals, with the average number of animals per farm
and the per cent of the total number in each geographie.division: 1900—
Continued.

AVERAGE NUMBER PER FARM REPORTING.

| |
D | Asses
prvisron. | eat | Deby lporses. |Mules.| B24 | sheop.a|swine.| Goats.
Tos,
Continental |
U.S...) 36] 16) 27] 14] a6] az2{ 58 6.9
North Atlantic...) 62] 39) 23] 20] 10] sta] 45/70
South Atlantic 2s| ia} ral 1s} re) isa] 45) 66
North Central 59) 21] go] 21) 21) s08) aos] 86
South Central qi] uz! 1s! 15] 16] ies} 65] 79
‘Western .. 247) 43 | B9| 51! 28] 36.7 0] 187
PER CENT OF TOTAL NUMBER.
a !
Continental j
U.8.--+---| 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0] 100.0 200.0
North Atlont 0.5) OL -
South Atlanti 9.5 12:3
North Central | 63
South Central | 79.6
Western ... 018 | 1.2 |

1 Including lambs, 2 Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent.

The proportion of the farms operated by negroes
reporting dairy cows and the proportion reporting neat
cattle varied, for the several divisions, only from two-
fifths to three-fifths. The farms reporting neat cattle,
but not reporting dairy cows, were comparatively few,
and probably represent, in the main, live stock farnis.
The average number of all neat cattle, per farm report-
ing, was much greater than the average number of
dairy cows, the contrast being especially marked in the
Western division, which showed a very high average
for all neat cattle.

In the North and Westa large proportion—more than

four-fifths—of the farms operated by negroes reported
horses, while but few farms reported mules; in the |
Southern divisions, where the mule is the chief beast |

NEGROES IN THE UNITED STATES.

of burden, the proportion of farms reporting horses
was much smaller, and was exceeded—though but
slightly—by the proportion reporting mules. The
average number of horses, per farm reporting, slightly
exceeded: that of mules in every division except the
South Atlantic, where there was no difference; but it
is very possible that this fact reflects not so much the
more extensive use of the horse as the superior endur-
ance of the mule, making it possible for a smaller
number to do the same work.

Swine were reported in 1900 by over two-thirds of
all farms in the South. The North Central division
also shows a high percentage. The figures for the other
divisions are slightly lower.

For’ every kind of domestic animal the Western
division shows the highest average per farm reporting,
while the lowest average is in most cases that shown
for the South Atlantic.

The South xeported more than nine-tenths of the total
number of each kind of domestic animal except sheep,
of which it reported four-fifths; approximately, two-
thirds or more of each kind reported by any consider-
able number of farms are found in the South Central
division, and somewhat less than one-third in the South
Atlantic.

The absence of common pasture greatly decreases the
amount of stock on farms operated by negroes. The
tenants hire little pasture land and put all available soil
into cultivation. For some years stock was allowed to
roam by the roadside, but ‘‘ fence laws” in many coun-
ties have in recent years held the owners of such stock
liable for damage done to unfenced crops, and the
custom has declined.

Value of farm products.—The statistics of value of
products of 1899 on farms operated by negroes in con-
tinental United States, by geographic divisions, were
as follows:

Taste IX.—VALUE OF PRODUCTS OF 1899 ON FARMS OF NEGRO FARMERS.

7
VALUE OF PRoDUoTS. avmacs vaun | avenaox vaton || AVERAGE vine
Per cent FARM, iB ACRE. IMPROVED LAND.
\ not fed,
DIVISION. to Yalue ———-
of farm
Not fed Not fed lot, fed.
Total, | Noted tolive |property.) ota, | “totive |} Total, | tolive |) Total. | tolive
stock. stock. stock.
Continental United States. ‘$255, 750,435 | $229, 906, 992 46.0 2] ga0s || $6.69/ $0.01 || $10.95 $9.84
North Atlantic 901, 798 033,429 | 14.8 a2 33g) 10.08] 8.20]) 16.87] 12.4
87,413, 897 79, 095, 096 48.6 BOL 275 6.61 5.08 9.85, 8.9L
5, 442, 806, 4, 238, 808 17.2 444 346 6,92 5,39 9.62 7.49
161, 784, 899 145, 718, 128 47,5 B64 323 7,45 6.7L ‘11.68 10.52
Western ... 207, 084 71, 581. 16.3 614 509 2.72 2.26 9,93 8.28

The average-value of products per farm is consid-
erably higher in the Northern divisions than in the
Southern, and somewhat higher in the South Central
division than in the South Atlantic. In this respect the
rank of the several divisions corresponds precisely with
their rank in respect to the average value of farm
property shown in Table v.

It would perhaps be expected that the most valuable

farms would produce the highest value of farm products.
But a comparison of the census figures by states fails to
bring out any such relationship. If a comparison be
made for the Southern states as regards these two fac-
tors it will be found, for instance, that the average value
of the negro’s farm is higher in Virginia than in Ala-
bama, while the average value of his farm products is
lower, and that Mississippi, which ranks second among


CLASSIFICATION BY TENURE.

The averages in the above table express in another
way, and more precisely, the differences in the size of
farms in different classes of tenure, already indicated
by the comparison between the distribution of the num-
ber of farms and the distribution of farm acreage. In
continental United States the average size of farms of
owners is 77 acres, while that of tenants is only 45 acres;
but the average numbers of acres improved are 83 and
81, respectively, or hardly more on farms of owners
than on those of tenants. In the Northern South
Atlantic states the tenant farms are exceptionally large

and the owned farms exceptionally small, the result
being that in this division the tenant's farm has not
only a larger total acreage, but also a larger improved

acreage, than the owner The exceptional character
of this division as regards the tenure of farms is noted
in other connections. Tt is due to several causes: This
section of the country is the oldest seat of negro scttle-
ment in America; the slaves here were sifted, the le
intelligent and the vicious being sold south and the
house servant class retained; pre to northern
markets and a considerable city population make market
gardening possible; all this has led the more intelligent
to buy land and go into small farming with iiscella-
neous crops. On the other hand, tenant farming in
this region only pays when entered into on a larger
scale than that of the owned market garden, and at the
sane time there is no great staple erop like cotton to
form the basis of a crop-lien system and lead to tenancy
rather than ownership. The Western South Central
states represent the other extreme, owners’ farms being
very much larger than those of tenants. It is probable
that in this division the live stock farms, of which there

are aconsiderable number operated by colored farmers,
bring up the average for owners without greatly affect-
ing that for tenants.
buying land in the West is a factor of importance.

Then, too, the greater ease of
The
exceptionally large size of the few managers’ farms is
noticeable in each division,

Value of furm property by tenure.—-The per cent
distribution, by tenure, of the total value of farm
property is shown in the following table:

Tamim XXVIL—Per cent distribution, hy tennre, of the total rulue of
property in furms of negro, Indian, anil Mongolian farmers: 1900.

PER CENT OF THR TOTAT. VALUR OF
FARM PROPERTY IN FALDS OF—

DIVISION. ‘Tenants,

Own
ert.

Mana-|__
gers,

Continental United States ..

South Atlantic division
Northern South Ath
Southern South Atlantic

South Central division,
astern South Central -
‘Western South Gentral:

87

From this table it appears that owners’ farms, which
constitute 26.9 per cent of the total number of farms
and comprise 38.3 per cent of the total acreage (Tables
Xxr and xxi), represent 82.9 per cent of the total
yalue of farm property. This means that these farms
are both larger and more valuable than the farms of ten-
ants although the difference in value is not as great as
the difference insize. Or, one might say, the tenant has
a more valuable farm in proportion to its acreage than
the owner, which would only he another way of repeat-
ing the fact that 57.8 per cent of the total acreage in
owners’ farms is unimproved land, while in tenants?
farms tho unimproved portion is only 81.2 per cent of
the total, The Northern South Atlantic division, it
will be remembered, is exceptional in showing a higher
per cent of improved acreage for owners than for ten-
ants, and in this division only does the owners’ propor-
tion of the total farm property exceed their proportion
of the total acreage.

The per cent which the value of each class of farm
property forms of the total farm value is shown in the
following table:

Tanne XXVU_—Per cent which the redue of euch specified else of farm
property forme of the total value of farm property in farme of
neyro, Indien, and Mongolian farmers classified ly tenures 1200,

PER CENT OF THR TOTA
FARM PROPERTY

Land

DIVISION. AND CLAS, ranptes
wiaproves | puna | ments | rave
cept bul Ings] wnel au | tock

ings).

Continental United Stats: |
Farms of

Northern South Atlantic divista
Farms of—
Owners.
‘Managers.
‘Tenants

From this analysis it is evident that buildings, im-
plements, and live stock represent larger percentages
of the total value of property in owned farms than in
tenant farms. This holds true for each of the minor


FARMS OPERATED BY NEGROES.

shows that nearly all such farms reporting cotton re-
ported it as their principal source of income, while
it is evident that the other crops must have been sub-
sidiary products on a large proportion of the farms
reporting them.

TT

The following table shows the per cent distribution,
in respect to principal source of income, of the farms
of negroes in the several Southern states, arranged in
the order of the decreasing per cent of cotton farms:

Taste XIII—PER CENT DISTRIBUTION OF THE FARMS OF NEGRO FARMERS BY PRINCIPAL SOURCE OF INCOME,
FOR THE SOUTHERN STATES AND TERRITORIES.

PER CENT OF THE FARMS OF NEGRO FARMERS REPORTING AS PRINCIPAL SOURCE OF INCOME—

STATE OR TERRITORY,
Miscel-
haneous,

Hay

Cotton, ee

Continental United States

Mississippi -
Louisiana

‘Tennessee
Florida
i

Murylan
Delaware
West Virginia:
District of Cold

The states in the above list form three rather distinct
groups as regards the importance of the cotton farm.
In the seven states at the head of the list more than
three-fourths, or approximately from 80 to 90 per cent,
of all farms cultivated by negroes report cotton as the
principal crop. These states lie almost entirely within
the cotton belt. Then come, in the above list, five
states lying on the border of the cotton belt or partially
within it. In these states from 40 to 50 per cent of the
farms are devoted principally to cotton. Finally, at
the foot of the list there are six states, including the
District of Columbia, in which practically no cotton is
grown; in these states most of the farms operated by
negroes are either miscellaneous, hay and grain, live
stock, or, tobacco farms. The miscellaneous farm
attains its greatest relative importance in Virginia and
West Virginia, the live stock farms in Maryland and
Delaware, and the tobacco farms in Kentucky. In
Maryland and Delaware the vegetable farm is‘of con-
siderable importance, while the few farms in the District
of Columbia are mostly of this class.

Expenditures for labor and fertilizers.—The chiet
items of expense on negro farms are the purchase of
seed and tools, the hiring of Jabor, the buying of fertil-
izers, and the repair of buildings. Of these the expen-
ditures for labor and fertilizers are perhaps the only
items which can be accurately calculated from year
to year.

The following table shows the expenditures for labor
and fertilizers in continental United States, by geo-
graphic divisions, in 1899:

BEBBREpRSE

1 Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent,

Flowers | wursery

and) Live
products.

Vege-
in, | stock, fe

At im Frnit. | Rice. | Sugar.

‘Tobne-
co,

plants.

@)

e)

Rha mcomnmmeronowe

SB Reneorrneceren
| SESScoRSSSSSEescer ||

Tanue XIV.—Expenditures for labor and fertilizers on farms of negro
formers: 1899.

ou yun | AVERAGE FER
norats avenscr vex | “lta oF Be
prvistox PROVED LAND.
: Fert Ferti-
Labor. Fertilizers,||Labor,| lizers, Labor. | iizers.
Continental U.S..| $8,789,792 | $5,614,844 $12 $8 |] 20.38 $0.24
North Atlantic 86,094 28, 12: 49 0.51
South Atlantic 8,663,841 | 4,688,977 13, 0.52
) 242,135 | ‘16,717 20 0.03
tral 4, 768, 110 930, 838 ll 0.07
29,612 1,187 88 0.068

On farms of negroes the expenditure for labor is small,
because the average farm is just large enough for the
labor of one family, needing outside help only in case
of emergency.

The average expenditure for labor, both per farm
and per acre of improved land, seems to depend upon
the wages paid, the agricultural wealth of the section,
and the class of farms. The North Atlantic division
showed in 1900 the highest average value of property;
and it also had a larger proportion of vegetable farms,
and therefore of intensive farming, than any other divi-
sion, Accordingly the average expenditure for labor
was very high. In the Western division three-tenths
of all negro farms were stock farms, having but little
improved land in proportion to their total area, and
devoting but little labor to the cultivation of crops;
hence the high average expenditure per acre of im-
proved land shown for this division is without much
significance in comparison with other divisions. For



COMPARISON OF WHITE AND COLORED FARMERS.

The highest percentages in this table are those for
the mule. Of the total number of farm mules in
the United States about one-sixth, or more accurately
two-thirteenths, are found on farms of negroes; in the
South Atlantic states the proportion is one-fourth and
in the South Central one-fifth. The table indicates
that the pig, the dairy cow, and the horse are the ani-
mals ranking next to the mule in the extent to which
they are found on farms of negroes. A comparison
with the percentages given in Table xxxm, shows
that in neither Southern division is the negro’s propor-
tion of the total number of any kind of domestic animal
equal to his proportion of the total number of farms;
but compared with his total farm acreage and farm
wealth, he has more mules, swine, dairy cows, and
horses than the white farmer in the South Central
states, and more mules and swine in the-South Atlantic.
Reference has already been made to the probability that
in the census returns many mules and horses used on
farms of negro tenants were credited to the farm of the
landlord who was the owner of these animals.’

The negro farmers produce almost two-fifths of all
the cotton raised in continental United States, more
than one-fifth of the sweet potatoes, and about one-tenth
of the tobacco and the rice. These are crops which are
mainly or entirely confined to the South, the two South-
ern divisions producing all the rice grown in continental
United States and all the cotton, with the exception of
a comparatively small quantity grown in Missouri and
Kansas. Of the sweet potatoes, 87.2 per cent are pro-
duced in the Southern divisions, and of the tobacco,
84.2 per cent. Accordingly, for these crops the pro-
portion of the total production of continental United
States grown on farms operated by negroes corresponds |

93

closely to the proportion of the production of the
Southern states grown on their farms.

Of the other crops.the proportion grown by negroes
is very small, being less than 1 per cent for all except
corn, for which their proportion is 3.7 per cent. If the
comparison be restricted to the Southern states the per-
centages are naturally somewhat larger, the negro farm-
ers raising 14.7 per cent of all the corn grown in the twa
Southern divisions and 8.6 per cent of all the potatoes.

The following table shows the proportion of the
principal crops grown on farms of negroes:

Tapue XXX VILL—Per cent of the total quantity of the specified crops
raised on farms operated by negroes in 1899.

PER CENT OF TOTAL CROP RAISED ON FARMS
OPERATED BY NEGROES.

cor. South At-
Continen. |} antic and | South At- | South Cen-
tal United |}South Cen-|lantie divi-| ‘tral aivi-
States. || tral divi- | sion, sion,
|| sions.

3.7 12.0
06 BL
at a5
oo Pas
0.2 0.9
98 22.5
0.5 BL
0.9 9.0
211 28.3
38.9 88.6
10.2 20.4

i Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent,
*Hay and forage exclusive of cornstalks,

Comparison of averages for white and for negro
Jarmers.—A. comparison between the negro and white
farmer may be presented by means of averages. The
following table gives the average size and value of
farms and the average value of products and of expendi-
tures for labor and fertilizers:

Taste XXXIX.—AVERAGE ACREAGE PER FARM FOR FARMS OF WHITE AND OF NEGRO FARMERS, AVERAGE

VALUE OF FARM PROPERTY AND FARM PRODUCTS,
TILIZERS: 1900.

AND AVERAGE EXPENDITURES FOR LABOR AND FER-

conmresrar || xonrx arcane || sourm arraxtic | our cavtnat || sour omsrnax | ;
AVERAGE.
Farms of Farms of||Farms of| Farms of|| Farms of| Farms of|| Farms of| Farms of | Farms of| Farms of|| Farms of| Farms of
white | negro || white | negro |} white | negro || white | negro || white | negro || white | negro
farmers. | farmers, |/ farmers. | farmers. || farmers, | farmers. || farmers, | farmers. || farmers. | farmers, || farmers. | farmers.
Average number of acres per farm:
‘Total acreage 100.3} 512] 96.7] 47.9] agn7 | bt] ag} ok2 || ton] 48.9] 05.8) 205.5
Improved acreage 78.5) 318] 57.5] | BL 8 55.8) 30.8l) 101.7) 46.2 bi5]  BL2]] ds) = “OL8
Averagevalue } |
Total. $4,016 | $009 j| $4,861] $2,712) st,or7} $500 |] $5,268 | $2,008 | $2,085} —g800 |) $7,201 $5,277
ni
buildings) . 2,567 ast || 2,00] a,518/ 3,178 369 |) 3,598] 1,408 || 1,208 443) 4,700] 2,188,
Build 701 96 || 1,440 882 ‘a0 177 239 805 31 708 329
Implements aid machinery ag 5 5 ny 20 167 59 95, 2 202 107
Live stock. 599 14 474 250 258 & 7a a7 457 129 |) 1,545 543
Average value :
Total ... 900 342 985 p12 561 304 || 1,080 44g 599 301 |) 1,415 614
Products not fed to live stock 708 808 || TAL 888 481 275 82 346 510 328 |) 1214 509
Ayerage value per acre of products not H |
fed to live stock 441} orf 7.56] 8.10 8.66) 5.08 6.07) 5.89 2.02} 6.7L 3.08 2.26
n 12 105 49 B 37 66 20 a7 n 238 88
10 8 8 16 16 5 3 1} 5 2 4

For all values in the above table, except the value per
acre of products not fed to live stock, the contrast
between the two races is much more marked in the

United States, as a whole, than it is in the two Southern
divisions, simply because the inclusion of the Northern
and Western divisions increases very materially—in

See page 78.

many cases more than doubling—the averages for white


THE NEGRO FARMER.

By W. E. Burenarpr Dv Bors, Ph. D.

FARMS OPERATED BY NEGROES.

Negro farmers are of two classes—those who are
operating farms they themselves own and those who
are operating farms owned by others. In the first part
of the following analysis the question of ownership of
the farm is disregarded, the figures including all farms
operated by negroes whether owned by them or not.
Later the question of tenure is considered, and in this
connection the figures relative to farms owned by
negroes are separately presented and discussed.

General statistics.—There were in the United States,
in 1900, 746,717 farms operated by negroes, of which
716,514 were improved by buildings, These farms
contained 88,233,933 acres, or 59,741 square miles, an
area about equal to that of the state of Georgia or that
of New England; 23,362,798 acres, or 61 per cent of the
total area, was improved for farming purposes. The
total value of property on these farms was $499,943, 784,
of which $324,244,397 represented the value of land
and improvements, $71,903,315 that of buildings,
$18,859,757 that of implements and machinery, and
$84,936,265 that of live stock. The gross value of all
products on farms of negroes in 1899 was $255,751,145.
Of this sum, however, $25,843,443 represents products
fed to live stock, the value of which reappears and is to
that extent duplicated in the reported value of animal
products such as meat, milk, butter, eggs, and poul-
try; subtracting this amount we have a net value of
$229,907,702, or 46 per cent of the total value of farm
property in farms cultivated by negroes. This sum
represents the gross farm income. The total expendi-
ture for labor on farms of negroes in 1899 was
$8,789,792, and the expenditure for fertilizers was
$5,614,844.

In considering the significance of these statistics it
should be borne in mind that a farm, as defined for
census purposes, includes all the land under one manage-
ment, used for raising crops and pasturing live stock,
with the wood lots, swamps, meadows, etc., connected
therewith, whether consisting of one tract or of several
separate tracts. It also includes the house in which the
farmer resides, and all other buildings used by him in
connection with his farming operations, together with
the land upon which they are located. The land is
considered to be under the management of the person
who cultivates it, either as owner, hired manager, or
tenant. Accordingly, a large plantation owned by 1

i Twelfth Census, Agriculture, Part I, page xiv.

person, but leased in small areas to 50 tenants, would
ordinarily be returned in the census as 50 farms.
Nevertheless, in some sections where the negroes work
Jand as tenants the enumerators reported all the land
and crops in the name of the owner or manager, thereby
crediting white farmers with values which, according
to the census definition, should have been assigned to
negro farmers.

The classification of farms by color of farmer was not
introduced in the Eleventh Census, and comparisons
between 1890 and 1900 are therefore impracticable. But
the increase in the number of farms operated by negroes
may be measured approximately by comparing the num-
ber of such farms or the number of negro private farm
families in 1900 with the number of negro (including
“mixed”) farm families in 1890. For the purpose of
this comparison the number of farms operated by
negro managers in 1900—1,744—must be excluded,
because in 1890 such farms were classified according
to the color of the employer, who was generally white.
In 1900 there were in continental United States 744,971
farms operated by negro owners and tenants, and
758,463 negro private farm families; on comparing
these figures with the number of negro farm families in
1890—549,632—the resulting percentages of increase
are 35.5 and 38, respectively. In 1890 the number of
all farm families, including both negro and white, was
in excess of the number of all farms, making it proba-
ble thatthe number of negro farm families was likewise
greater than the number of farms of negroes. In
that case the comparison of negro farm families in
1890 with farms of negroes in 1900 would not ade-
quately represent the increase in the number of such
farms. The comparison with the number of private
farm families in 1900 also is defective, because the
number of farm families in 1890 included families other
than private. It is probable, then, that both of the
percentages based on the above comparisons fall short
of the true percentage of increase. On considering
the returns by geographic divisions, it is found that
the increase is confined to the two Southern divisions,
being about 35 per cent in the South Atlantic and
about 43 per cent in the South Central; but the figures
are too roughly approximate to be worth detailed
analysis.

The importance of agriculture as an occupation for
the negro in the South is emphasized by the following
table, which shows by geographic divisions the propor-
tion negro farm homes form of all negro homes:

(69)


80

overthrown by the Civil War. ‘The Jand wasted by the
armies declined in value, a billion and a half of capital
invested in slaves disappeared utterly, and the people
were left poor and deeply in debt.

“Tn nearly all the states the course of procedure after
the war was the same. The old system of planting on a
large scale was p lly resumed with contract labor
and borrowed capital; but the system soon broke down
hecause of the refusal of the freedmen to work under
the conditions offered. ‘The result was a compromise
hetween the landed and landless classes, bringing about
a metayer or share tenant system.

The share tenant system.—This system showed many
forms and variations. In South Carolina a scheme
proposed by a negro laborer came into vogue as
early as 18 The laborer was to work for the land-
owner five days per week, and have a house, rations,
3 acres of land, a mule and plow every other Satur-
day to work the land, and $16 in money at the end of
the year. The payment of money was considered as
representing the value of an extra half day per week,
thus raising the Jaborer’s proportion of the week to
one and one-half days, or one-fourth; his compensa-
tion wus therefore regarded as equivalent to his board
and lodging and one-fourth of the product. This sys-
tem proved very successful. The second year some
of the laborers proposed to work only four days, feed
themselves, and take double the land and mule work,
without the money. The third year three-day hands
came in, furnishing part of their own stock, and
as there were others who paid the rent for a house and
anacre of land by giving two days’ work per week,
there were often found onthe same plantation various
classes of hands working for the owner from two to six
days per week.

The most common share system consisted in granting
a freed family a piece of land, usually from 40 to 80
acres, and taking a share of the crop as rent. The share
of the crop taken depended on what the laborer fur-
nished. If he gave nothing but his labor and that of
his family—implements, stock, and food being fur-
nished—the landowner took two-thirds of the crop; if
the laborer fed himself, the owner received half of the
crop; if the laborer also furnished tools and mule, the
owner received from one-fourth to one-third of the
crop. The details of this arrangement of course varied
according to locality, fertility, crop, and the character
of the contracting parties; if the laborer was thrifty
and lucky, the rental of the land was eventually fixed
at so much cotton or money, and thus the renter, as dis-
tinguished from the metayer, appeared.

This system naturally resulted in the cutting up of
the large plantations of the South. The almost contin-
uous decrease in the size of farms may be seen from
the following table:

[3
| 30

NEGROES IN THE UNITED STATES.

Tames XVIL—Average area in acres of all farms tna the Souths 1880

to 1900.
ee

Southern}

aus ¥ Atunti
RNSUS YEAR, Fics

slo

The average area of farms for the South as
decreased from 335.4 acres in 1860 to 138.2 in 1900, or
58.8 per cent; the decrease was noticeably greater in
the South Atlantic than in the South Central states.

To a considerable extent this change results from the
“fact that the large plantation, instead of being oper-
ated by the owner as one farm with the aid of slave
or hired labor, has been leased in small arcas to ten-
ants, each such area constituting a separate farm accord-
ing to the census definition of the term.

The crop-lien system.—Another result of the share
system in the South was the rise of the crop-lien sy:
tem of credit farming, the understanding of which
absolutely necessary to any intelligent study of the
negro tenant farmer.*

Suppose that A is a landholder with 1,000 acres in
one of the country districts of Georgia, B is a general
merchant, and C is a negro with a wife and soveral
half-grown children.

In slavery times the relations of such a group would
have been as follows: A owned C and his family; he
furnished them shelter, and gave them food and cloth-
ing at stated intervals. Such supplies as A did not
have on hand he bought of B, usually on credit, paying
at harvest time. At this time the business of B was
largely wholesale, and he was located at some central
point like New Orleans or Savannah.

Directly after emancipation the relations of the three
chief factors changed as follows: A, who was almost or
quite bankrupt, divided up his plantation and let C and
his family work, say 80 acres, on shares. A furnished,
as before, food, shelter, tools, stock, and perhaps even
clothes; C was to work the land and receive from one-
third to one-half of the net proceeds after the cost of
the food and clothing advanced by A had been deducted.
B, the merchant of whom A bought these supplies on
credit, was no longer a wholesale dealer, but a merchant
in a neighboring market town of 500 to 1,000 inhab-
itants, with a small cash capital and a large supply of
general merchandise. .

This system proved very unsatisfactory. The freed-
man usually found himself at the end of the season with
no surplus or in debt. Moreover, under the lenient

The following description is based on the report on thi
landowner of Georgia, Bulletin No. 35 United Sates ‘Department
nr.


THE NEGRO TENANT. 79

Tanne XVI.—Farms of negro farmers classified according to tenure.

NUMBER OF FARMS OPERATED BY—
DIVISION, | ‘Tenants.
Aut ora, | Mana-
cases, |) Owners. | "gers |—
An. || cass, | share,
Continental
United States..|_ 746,715 || 187,797 | 1,744 | 657,174 |) 273,500 | 288,614
North Atlantic 1150| 67) 68 sot] 240
South Atlantic 84,389 | 986 | 202,78 |] 100,523 | 102,055
North Central co} 100 | "5.174 amos | “3 a0,
South Central 96,029 | 695 | 8484805 || 170) 99 | 177's08
Western - 257 7 26
PER CPNT OPERATED BY—
DIVISION, Tenants.
All Mana-
classes, | Owners. | Mant —
An. |} cash, | share.
a _| — \
Continental |
United states..| 10,0]) 25.2] 02] m6!) 36.6) 8.0
North Atlantic 10.0], 65.8} 3.8 wal 13.6
South Atiantie 100.0) 30:8] 0:8 ako] 35.5
North Centra! 100.0.) 50:8} 0-9 189] 233
South Centra 100.0) ana] or ae} 4000
Western « woo] 762) an) 77) ko

The percentages of rented farms in 1900 were rela-
tively high in each of the two Southern divisions, and
somewhat higher in the South Central than in the South
Atlantic. Of the comparatively few negro farms in the
Northern divisions the proportion rented was much
smaller.

Clearly the central feature in the southern farm life
of the negro race is the tenant class—those half-million
black men who hire farms on various terms, anda large
proportion of whom stand about midway between
slavery and ownership.

Conditions under slavery.—Present conditions in the
farm life of the southern negro can be understood only
by bringing to mind the historic development. Before
the war the southern plantation consisted of the owner,
from 20 to 200 slaves, and several hundred acres of
land. Directly under the master stood an overseer,
who directed the work through several head slaves
called ‘‘drivers.” The rank and file of slaves were
divided into house servants, mechanics, and field hands.
All over 12 years of age—men, women, and children—
worked in some way, children and the old and disabled
being given half tasks.

Cotton was the chief crop on these plantations; but
rice was largely cultivated in South Carolina, sugar in
Louisiana, and tobacco in the more northern states.
Grain crops were of minor importance, and the quanti-
ties of hay, fruit, and vegetables raised were scarcely
sufficient for home consumption.

One of the most striking features in connection with
plantations such as these is their largearea. Although
exact figures are not available, there is evidence to
show that they continually increased in size from 1820

to about 1855. As the old lands were gradually worn
out, the demand for fresh soil shifted the region of
large farms continuously south and west.

The earliest exact figures available are for the cen-
suses of 1850 and 1860. The intervening decade wit-
nessed the zenith of the plantation system and the
beginning of its decline. The history of the country
during this period is the history of the efforts of the
landowners to maintain their economic advantage. The
cotton market was favorable, the price rising and re-
maining high. The region of large farms tended farther

| and farther southward and westward, and as the worn-

out farms of the border states were abandoned for
farming purposes they were utilized as slave-breeding
farms, in order to meet the increasing demand for slave
labor in the cotton district; thus Maryland, Virginia,
North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri
became the seat of an internal slave trade of large
dimensions. The average assessed value of slaves (one-
third or one-half lower than the real value) rose from

| $324 in 1840 to $361 in 1850, and to $505 in 1855.7

The illicit foreign slave trade, thus encouraged, as-
sumed larger dimensions toward 1860.

Between 1850 and 1860 the average size of the plan-
tations in the cotton growing South increased from
427 to 431 acres; leaving out Texas, whose ranches
in 1850 were not really farms, the increase was from
353 to 408 acres, or 15.7 per cent. But during the
same period the average size in the border states, where
the land had been worked out and the plantation system
was being abandoned for slave breeding and for the
beginnings of -small farms, decreased from 282 to 258
acres.

Even more striking than the increase in the area of
the large southern plantations was the concentration
upon them of nearly all the slaves.owned in the South.
This is shown in the following statement:

Proportions of slave owners and of slaves in the population of the
South: 1850 and 1860.

rer cent owners || p,

FORM OF— ‘Saves’ | Average
faves | number of

CENSUS YEAR. |-———______— slaves

‘Total pop- | White or oor

‘otal pop- | White pop-| on .

lation | ulation, uldtion, | owner.
1860. 3.2 5.1 | 34.5 u
3850 7 27 ial 34.7 3

fi

These figures show that the slaves formed about one-
third of the total population of that section, but that the
owners of these slaves formed only between 5 and 6 per
cent of the white population and between 3 and 4 per
cent of the total population, the proportion being even
lower in 1860 than in 1850.

Liffect of the Ciwil War.—This economic system was

1 Cotton Kingdom, Olmsted.


76

In this table the crops have been arranged in the
order of their total acreage. If the order of the num-
ber of farms reporting were used, the rank of corn,
sweet potatoes, and hay and forage would be higher.

Of all crops raised on farms operated by negroes cot-
ton is the most important. In the history of the agri-
cultural operations of negroes, however, tobacco in
Virginia was the first crop; then came sugar and coffee
in the West Indies, and rice in the Carolinas. Cotton
became a leading crop in the thirties, when Whitney’s
cotton gin was introduced. The quantity raised on all
farms increased from eight hundred million pounds
in 1840 toa billion in 1850 and two billions in 1860.
During the Civil War cotton planting was, of course,
suspended. Immediately afterwards, however, it began
again with renewed vigor, for the high price of this
staple forced all the agricultural energies of the South
into cotton culture, leading to an extensive use of land
stimulants, and causing neglect of nearly all other
crops—even food supplies for man and beast. At first,
cottonseed and guano were used to some extent for fer.
tilizers, then concentrated manufactured fertilizers,

Farms classified by principal source of income.—An
interesting study is furnished by classifying farms
according to the crop (if any) the value of which in
1899 constituted at least 40 per cent of the total value
of products. All farms not deriving that proportion
of their total income from any one crop are classified as
“miscellaneous.” Such figures must be carefully inter-
preted, however, or they will become misleading, for
only the principal crop is considered, and the aggregate
value of a given crop on farms on which it is a subsidi-
ary product sometimes exceeds the aggregate value of
the same crop on farms on which.it forms 40 per cent
of the total income; for example, the ageregate value
of corn produced on cotton farms far exceeds that ot
corn on corn farms. On most of the cotton farms
corn and potatoes also are raised, and mules and swine
arekept. Tobacco, while the principal crop on but few
farms, is a subsidiary crop of considerable importance
on a great many.

The classification of farms operated by negroes in conti-
nental United States by principal source of income in 1899
is given by geographic divisions in the following table:

Tani XII.—Farms of negro farmers classified according
source of income in 1899.

NUMBER OF FARMS IN EACH CLASS,

to principal

Cont | worn | south | wortn | soutn

°
nental Western
CLASS OF FARNS, | Atlantic | Atlantic | Central | Gentrai | West
pited Atvision, | division, |diviston, division.| @Vision,
Alliarms ......| 746,715 || 1,761 | 287,993 | 12, 255 | 444,429 887

Farms reporting ag
Principal source of
income—
Cotton ..........
Miscellaneous)
hroducts
fay and gr:
Live stock
Pobax

166,146 126 | 959,963 |...

| also partly

plants..
Nursery producis| 7) 3

NEGROES IN THE UNITED STATES.

Tape XII—Furms of negro farmers classisied according to principal
source of income in 1899—Continued.

PER CENT IN EACH CLASS.

rent | North | South, | North,
ss or rans, | DOM | Atlantic | adantic | Centra
CHASS OF PARE: | United | div aon, | division: (diviaeae (sear
States. |
All farms . 300.0 |) 100.0} 100.0 100.0] 300.0 100.0

Farms reporting ag |
prineipel source of |

freome—
6 70.5 8.7 1.0
124 30.1} 20.6
69 8.9 35.8
41 45 B14
26 1) 0
21 a3] a1
07 03 29
0.3 05 Qa.
03 0.6 |
on 3)
ants. Q) 0.6 a 06
Nursery i) a2} fj 0:8

) Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent,

The several divisions differ greatly, of course, in the
kind of principal crop reported. In the South Central
division four-fifths of all farms are cotton farms. In
the South Atlantic there is somewhat greater diversity,
cotton farms forming a little less than three-fifths of
the total; but even here there is no other single crop
returned as the principal crop for one-tenth of all farms
in the division. In the North Central states, hay and
grain farms and live stock farms are of about equal
importance, together constituting about two-thirds of
the total. In the West there is considerable concentra-
tion on the same two classes, which form over half of
the total. In the North Atlantic states the greatest
diversity is found, the principal classes of farms being,
in the order of their importance, miscellaneous, live
stock, vegetable, hay and grain, and dairy farms. For
continental United States, as a whole, the principal
crop is usually cotton, the cotton farms constituting
seven-tenths of all farms; next in rank are miscellane-
ous farms and then hay and grain farms, constituting
respectively 12.4 per cent and 6.9 per cent of the total
number.

As the presence of a large miscellaneous class im-
plies the absence of specialization, it is of some interest
to compare the several sections in this respect. The
South Central division, which is preeminently the region
of the cotton plantation, shows by far the smallest per-
centage of farms of this class. In the South Atlantic
division the percentage is much higher, nearly equal-
ing that in the North Central division and surpassing:
that in the Western. The highest percentage is that for
the North Atlantic division. In the cotton belt the
negro evidently devotes his energies chiefly to cotton.
This is partly because of his long training in growing
this staple, and because it is a profitable crop; and it is
because even when this crop is not as prof-
itable as others, the crop-mortgage system under which
the negro tenant works regards cotton alone as proper
security, and the tenant must therefore plant it.

A comparison of the number of the farms operated
by negroes in continental Uni ted States reporting speci-
fied crops in 1899 (Table Xi), with the number reporting
those cropsastheir principal source of income. (Table x1),


90 NEGROES IN THE UNITED STATES.

mr ft ¢ Xi) d by t! i f te vironing white
phenomena are, of course, explained by the richer and | are the relations of the black to the environing

'

|

more abundant land of the Miss: valley. ec kinds: They
abu of the Mississippi valley | group? Their relations are of three kinds: y stanc
a iss 2 Th hree kind ti

as laborer to employer, as tenant to landlord, and as

NCE OF - ducers of the wealth of the land. he first. o:

aia | these. three relations has been touched on but casually

comes: | in this discussion; the second has been frontad a cone
i ing study to siderable length. Let us now consider the third.

An attempt has been made in the foregoing st ; sideral eng ; om
treat the nero farmers as a group without comparing | Proportion of the total farm acreage and dota fern
them directly with the whites. This is necessary if one | yales in farms opera by eproas Some lig ht upon

in an intelli ictur tf | this question may be derived from the following °
vould gain an intelligent picture of the development of | this qu ving ta
the freedmen's sons and not be misled by inapt compar- | showing what percentages of the total amber on
eles is r r rm values, an expendi-
ison. Nevertheless the great and patent fact is that | total farm acreage an arDd V } and to expen
this gon of negroes is not developing by itself, but is | tures for labor and fertilizers, are comprised in farms
surrounded by a large and rich nation of whites. What | operated by negroes.

q RMS, TOTAL ACREAGE, AND TOTAL SPECIFIED
e XXXII.—PER CENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ALL FA: , c Da
Pani SX VALUES AND EXPENDITURES COMPRISED IN FARMS OPERATED BY NEGROES: 1900.

| PER CENT OF THE TOTAL FOR ALL, FARMS COMPRISED IN FARMS OPERATED BY NEGROES.
| __ -
 . 4 Value of farm property. | |
| j | | Yale of| Exponde
| oduets| Kxpenat-| Expendi
DIVISION AND STATE OR TERRITORY. | i ‘tand anal Vaine of | roduats/ expend tun i
Number | s creage, Improved tnprover Imple- [oroguets onted | “Inbors | fert
of farms, "| neresge. | otal, |] ments | Build- | ments Live i 189. | olive | 1800. saat
— "(SHER | | aa) ok | socks
| nulla ‘inery.
| ings). |
| ngs) | oe
| | 2, 3.3 4
Continental United states... wo 46) Be 24 a7} 2a 3| 8 ba
~ ] } 7 2 8.8 9.
South Atlantie division ... m9) M9) 3] uel ame] a7} m1] al
clay a4) 49] 40 a7} 28] 34 37
oe He) oe u] oH) rf
beta alk) HOH H
8) od 04 od o4 04 Od
ao! 7) a 3} 94) 0d 165
55.0] 3r 1! a4 a2) ara} BNo 38.9
36.9} 90-7] B13 2.5) 162] 172 287
Bl] wd] ome wo) ia) tka 20.1
8] 84] ans . ws] 24) 100]  a0.6]} 18.2
48/20/25] aa 28} ael 2a] 2al as
BM) i He) A) Bp
aor] 35, 26:1 : 2 . ¥
S1} ses} goal) aa! azo] «ag! «ae «aol «ace
Bl) Bo) gery iat] as) ez] “50) aa] amg 6
mel ms} ise} ise! ae wee) ua] 62) are 13
80) 5.0 cs et 37 4 % ; 5
36] 17] 30 Lo a7] 5 6} os 16 07
wo} 80; wal BS ea} 71 ca] Bo tole 49
North Atlantic division 03) a2) on 0.2 02] a2 0.2 o1 0.1 0.2
North Central atv 05} 02] o8 02 Os] Og ive 03 0.2 02
Western division oa) oa) att at Ulf or 12 OL or O4

The negro farmer conducts 13 per cent or about one- | South we find that the negro conducts considerably more
eighth of the farms in continental United States, and | than a fourth of the farms, a little more than a tenth
controls 4.6 per cent of the total farm acreage, 5.6 per | of the total acreage, more than a sixth of the improved
cent of the improved acreage, and 2.4 per cent of the | acreage, and about a ninth of the farm property; and
farm property. He raises 5.4 per cent of the total | that he raises more than a sixth of the gross products,
farm products measured by value and 6.1 per cent of | according to value, and almost a fifth of the products
the farm produets not fed to live stock. These figures | not fed to live stock, These statistics, of course, take
are small, but that is because the country is so large | no account of the negro’s productivity as a farm
and rich. laborer, but only as a farmer. It is noticeable that

In the North Atlantic division the negro farmer is a | while the contribution of the negro farmer to the agri-
negligible quantity, cultivating only three-tenths of 1 cultural production of the South comes short of hig
per cent of all the farms in that division. In the North | proportion of the total number of farms, it fully equals
Central states he is a somewhat larger figure, but holds | his proportion of the improved acreage, and exceeds
only six-tenths of 1 per cent of the farms, In the | his Proportion of the total farm acreage and farm
Western states the proportion falls to one-tenth of 1 per | property.

cent. If, however, we confine our comparison to the Tn the South Atlantic division negroes hold a little



NEGROES IN THE UNITED STATES.
HE FARMS OPERATED BY NEGROES IN 1900 CONSTITUTED AT LEAST 50

96
PER CENT OF ALL FARMS.

Mar 9.—SOUTHERN COUNTIES IN WHICH T!

a

‘ ey

Pm

eee a

'
i
!
a

|
|
L

Mar 10.—SOUTHERN COUNTIES IN WHICH FARMS OWNED AND OPERATED BY NEGROES IN 1900 CONSTITUTED
AT LEAST 50 PER CENT OF ALL FARMS OPERATED BY NEGROES.



12

As shown in this table the farms cultivated by negroes
in continental United States represent farm property
having a total value of half a billion dollars. Land
and improvements other than buildings constitutes
64.8 per cent, or more than three-fifths of this total; the
next largest item is that of live stock, which constitutes
17 per cent, or more than one-sixth of the total; then
that of buildings, constituting 14.4 per cent, or one-
seventh; and lastly, implements and machinery, repre-
senting a small fraction only. The proportion of the
total value of farm property comprised in the value of
buildings is much larger in the North Atlantic states
than in any other division.
farm buildings, the requirements in a state like Ver-
mont differ greatly from those in Mississippi, the rigor-
ous climate of the North demanding well-constructed
shelter for both man and beast, while in the South less
protection is needed. Live stock attains its greatest
importance, as compared with the total farm value, in
the South Central and Western divisions.

The average values of farm property are decidedly
higher in the North Atlantic, North Central, and West-
ern divisions than in either of the Southern divisions,
and since in the North and West the majority of negro
farmers own their farms, while in the South three-
fourths of them are tenants, the comparison indicates
that the northern negro isa more prosperous farmer
than bissouthern brother. Probably the great majority
of the northern and western negroes are immigrants
from the South or the children of immigrants, and their
greater prosperity may be attributed in part to the
native enterprise which led them to migrate, and in part
to the influence of a new environment in which they are
brought more directly in contact with the example and
the competition of the white farmer.

The differences between the two Southern divisions
are comparatively slight, but they indicate a greater
average farm value in the South Central division, with
poorer buildings, however, than in the South Atlantic.

The percentages for the Western division suggest
similarity between this and the two Southern divisions,
but the averages reveal enormous differences. The
apparent advantage of the West is due, however, to the
very large acreage per farm, only a small proportion
of which was improved. The relatively very large
yalue of live stock per farm in the Western division
is due to the fact that three-tenths of all the western
farms operated by negroes are live stock farms; in the
two Northern divisions, also, the averages are affected
by this cause, though not quite so conspicuously.

The farm home.—Emancipation made some change
in the home life of the negro, but it was not a radical
one. In the back districts, where the new order pene-
trated but little, it was scarcely noticeable; the ‘‘big
house” and the quarters remained, but the latter were
often worse than before, on account of deterioration
and the failure to make repairs. Many masters en-
tered into contracts witli their freed slaves, who worked

Naturally, in the matter of j

|

NEGROES IN THE UNITED STATES.

on as hired laborers. It was very difficult, however,
to check the roving instinct of a people fired, by newly
acquired freedom, with new thoughts and new ambi-
tions. The attractions of town life were very great to
the freedman; his few holidays and stolen pleasures in
the past had centered there, and thus the picture of
congregated life in town represented to him a long-
cherished ideal of liberty, while the prospect of life on
the old plantation, pursuing the same dull round of toil,
had little attraction, To some extent laborers were
induced to remain on farms by-offers of higher wages
and better houses; and thus frame cabins with board
floors gradually replaced the worst of the slave quarters.

One impulse toward better housing in the country
came from the new negro landowners. Immediately
after emancipation the negroes began buying land, and
in many instances the new peasant proprietor made
efforts to improve the condition of his dwelling. He
could not, of course, think of building a big house like
that occupied by his former master, and, in default of
any other models to follow, he naturally built a slave
cabin with some improvements, such as putting a porch
on the front, cutting one or two windows, and adding a
Jean-to at the back for’a bedroom. If he went further
than this in the number of rooms, or introduced new
furniture, the chances are that he got his ideas from
friends who lived in town. Many of the freed slaves
who had migrated to town and found work as mechanics
or laborers lived in frame houses of two, three, or four
rooms. From these patterns the negroes learned, and
two and three room houses appeared here and there in
the country. In the course of time, then, some progress
has been made. The dirt floor has practically disap-
peared, a large proportion of the log cabins have been
replaced by frame houses, and glass windows have been
introduced here and there. But, on the whole, the im-
provement is slow. The one-room cabin is still the
typical farm home of the negro. Fully one-third of
the negroes on farms live in dwellings of this character.

Of course this kind of dwelling has no peculiarly inti-
mate connection with the negro nor with the South, being
the primitive form of dwelling of all men and races; the
eave dwellers, the French peasants, the American In-
dians, and the American pioneers all lived in one-room
homes. Under certain conditions of life such houses
may be fairly comfortable: given a man and wife, the
necessity for economy of heat, an active outdoor life,
and a scarcity of the finer sort of building material,
there can beno better home than the old roomy log
hut, with its great fireplace. But an increase in the
number of inmates, a decrease in the size of the house,
or a change in the manner of life can easily transform
this kind of home into a veritable pesthouse. This has
been exactly the history of the one-room negro cabin.
In it large families of children grow to maturity, under
unhealthy conditions and poor moral restraint at best.

The great obstacle to home-making among negroes is,
of course, their own training and ideals. Their African


THE NEGRO FARM OWNER.

Taste XIX.—DISTRIBUTION, BY SUBCLASSES OF TENURE,

FARMS OF NEGRO, INDIAN, AND. MONGOLIAN OWNERS IN CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES: 19

83

. OF THE NUMBER, ACREAGE, VALUE, ETC., OF THE
00.

\ 1
[rasasgor pono yhunns oY AL NBAwo, INDIAN, AND WONOOLIAN OWsES
| _ _
| 7 7 7
ji
7 Value of produets|| sxpendi
Wow | Value of farm : Expenditures for |) Expenditures for
|| umber. Acrenge. a Of 1999 hot fed nrg ependitur
ver | property. of 1a hat fe jabor: isle, | dertilizers: 2800
CLASS oF OWNERSHIP, cent —= |___— |_
Num. | ,@f) Per | Per Per Per Per Per
er. | fotal, cent | cent | per cent cent cent cent
own | or ot | cent 8 ot oi 3
own ll otat, | total |} “wotal. | total} $62 |) rota. | toto | total, | total |] ‘Total. | totat || otal,
7 forall for all | soved. forall for all forall
own- | | own. [Proved. own- | own- own-
on. ers. | ‘ers. on |

| ers. |
|

100.0 |] $1,197,180

's170, 796, 639 | 100. 0 |/967, 422, 988 |

All owners | 100.0 42,2 100.0 |} $2, 624, 595
‘Owners proper Bhd 40.5 || 150, 957,201 | 83.7 | 47,428, 553 | 22.6 || 2,005,485 | 70.0 || 964,700] 80.6
Part owners... 80,501 | 14.8 p24 |] 27, 15.2 |] 9,431,869 | 16.4 |] “496,670 | 18.9 222,210 | 18.6
Owners and tenants. ‘1,582 0.8 50.2 Li 662,571 1.0 82, 440 1.2 10,210 O8
under his control. In 1900 there were 30,501 such

These figures show that in 1900 negro farmers who
owned all of the land they cultivated, or ‘‘owners
proper,” formed 83.3 per cent of all negro owners,
while part owners and owners and tenants formed 15.9
per cent and 0.8 percent, respectively. For all colored
farmers the percentage of owners proper was slightly |
larger, and that of part owners slightly smaller, than |
for negroes alone. It will be noticed that while the
percentage of the total acreage held by colored part
owners was slightly smaller than their percentage of
the number of farms, their percentage of the value of
farm property was slightly larger and their percentage
of the value of products and of expenditures for labor
and fertilizers considerably larger. This indicates that
part owners as a class operate smaller but more valu-
able, productive, and highly cultivated farms than those
who own all their land. The few farms of owners and
tenants exhibit a similar superiority over the farms of
owners proper as regards value of farm property and
of products, and expenditures for labor.

The above table represents only the farms cultivated
by negro or colored owners, taking no account of the
land rented out by negro or colored owners, of which
there isa considerable amount, for the custom of sub-
renting is, widespread.

Owned and rented land in farms of owners.—The
total area in farms of colored owners in continental
United States in 1900 was 15,976,098 acres, or 24,963
square miles. Not all of this land, however, was owned
by the farmers cultivating it; in farms of part owners,
some of it, as already explained, was rented from other
persons as an addition to the owned land. This com-
posite form of tenure, under which the farmer is both
owner and tenant, is representative of a method of buy-
ing land prevalent among southern negroes. A man
first buys 40 acres of land, paying for it in installments;
after that is bought—or, more probably, while he is
paying for it—he rents a neighboring plot of 40 acres
which he conducts as part of his original-farm. Thus
he is a landowner, but only part owner of the farm

farms in continental United States conducted by col-
ored farmers, of whom 29,956 were negroes. These
farms contained 2,205,297 acres, of which 1,193,418, or
an average of 39.1 acres per farm, were owned, and
1,011,884, or an average of 33.2 acres per farm, were
rented. In the Southern states there were 28,055 such
farms, all of which were reported by negroes.

There is still a further complication of ownership in
the case of the few farms conducted jointly by the owner
of the land and a tenant who shares the product. In
1900 colored farmers conducted 1,582 such farms, with
an area of 149,068 acres, or 94 acres per farm; of these
farms, 1,471 were conducted by negroes. The land in
such farms partakes of the nature of both owned and
rented land (see page 78), but is appropriately classified
as owned land in any statement designed to show the
extent to which negroes are to be credited with the
ownership of the land they cultivate. Observing these
distinctions, we find that the total owned land of col-
ored farmers in continental United States in 1900
amounted to 14,964,214 acres, or 23,382 square miles—
an area nearly as large as Holland and Belgium—and
constituted 35.8 per cent of all the land operated by
colored farmers. The figures for continental United
States and for the two Southern divisions are given in
the following table:

Tanre XX.—Acres of owned and rented land in farms of negro, Indian,
and Mongolian owners: 1900.

Continental | South South

THNURE, il | Atlantic | Central

United States, | Aivision. | vison.
8, 981, 245
-| 14, 984, 214 | 4,095, 8,477,018
In 1; 621, 783 | 8,070,787 | 7,717,407

In farms of part owners and of

ow tenants | 1,842,481 | 424,098 | 750, 606
Rented. ‘| 100,884 | $81,710 | dod, 282

The per cent which the acreage owned forms of the
total acreage in all farms of colored farmers is 35.8 for


CLASSIFICATION BY TENURE. 85

Tani XXI.—Number and acreage of farms of negro, and of Indian
and Mongolian farmers: 1900—Continued.

B—ACREAGE.
OR MONGOLIAN
FARMERS, ONS
‘ Total _|
DivistoN. acreage. |
Per cent Per cent
|| Acreage. | of total || Acreage. | of total
| acreage. acreage.
|
Continental U. 8.| 41,766,028 || 38, 238, 920 8,582, 108 8.5
North Atlantic 107,280 || 84,407] 78.7 |] 22,882 21.3
South Atlantic: 15, 637, 266 || 15,673,561] 99.6 || 63,704
North Central. 3; 211, 988 || "787,071 | 85.6 |) 1,424,267 6s
South Central: 22, 974,781 || 21, 7121876 | 94.5 || 1,261, 905 5.5
‘Western... 5,400 |} ” 76,005 9.1 | “7759; 395 90.9

In the two Southern divisions the colored faimers
consist almost entirely of negroes, the number of other
colored farmers being so small that it is practically. a
negligible quantity; accordingly, for these two divisions
generalizations in regard to the negroes may be based
upon statistics for all colored. In the North Atlantic
and North Central states, however, the proportion of
other colored is a factor of importance, and in the
Western states the number of negroes is small in com-
parison to the total number of colored. Inso far, then,
as it may be necessary to use the data for ‘‘colored,”
the discussion by geographic divisions and states will
be confined to the South, where 95 per cent of the negro
farmers are found, and where negro and colored are
practically coextensive and identical; and the Northern
and Western states will be taken into consideration
only so far as they are represented in the totals for
continental United States.

The distribution of farms by tenure has already been
presented for the farms operated by negroes (see
Table xv1),-but since the statistics of acreage and value
which follow, relate to all colored farmers it is desira-
ble to have the distribution shown for this class also,
although it differs but little from that shown for negro
farmersalone. Accordingly, in Table xx11, the number
of farms operated by colored farmers in each main
class of tenure is given, together with the per cent
which the number in each class forms of the total
number in all classes. The comparison by geographic
divisions in this table and in those which follow is con-
fined to the South, but is presented for the minor as
well as the main divisions of that section.

Taste XXIL—Farms of negro, Indian, and Mongolian farmers
classified according to tenure: 1900.

Tasiz XXIL.—Furms of negro, Indian, and Mongolian farmers
classified according to tenure: 1900—Continued.

7
Divison, i ‘Tenants,
Mane
‘gers, ]

Ail, |} Cash,

ad, ~ joey

Continental U. 8.....

South Atlantic division....!/ 100.0] 29.5 70.2 |) 348) 95.4
Northern South Atlantic.| 100.0! 58.8 40.5 || 145] 26.0
Southern South Atlantic:| 10:0} 23.0 7.7 |) 388) 37.4

South Central division... 100.0] 22.5 m4] 979] 39.8
Eastern South Central. 100.0 | 18.6 g8 || 46.7) 346
Western South Central:_} 1000 | 28:1 m7 || 25.0) 46.7

A little more than one-fourth of all colored farmers
in continental United States are owners, almost three-
fourths are tenants, and a very small fraction are man-
agers. A comparison of the figures for the South by
minor divisions brings out the fact that in the Northern
South Atlantic states the percentage of owners is excep-
tionally high (58.8), while in the Eastern South Central
it is exceptionally low (18.6).

The tenant class of colored farmers in continental
United States, is almost equally divided between cash
tenants and share tenants, the former constituting a
little more and the latter a little less than one-half of
the total. This equality is the resultant, however, of
counterbalancing inequalities in the different divisions;
for in the Northern South Atlantic and Western South
Central divisions share tenants predominate, constitut-
ing about two-thirds of all tenants, while in the Eastern
South Central almost three-fifths of all tenants are cash
tenants.

Farm acreage by tenure.—The per cent distribution,
by tenure, of the total farm acreage is shown in the
following table:

asin XXIIL—Per cent distribution, by tenure, of the total acreage
and of the tolal improved acreage in farms of negro, Indian, and
Mongolian farmers: 1900.

PER CENT OF THE TOTAL ACREAGE IN
FARMS OF

DIVISION,
Tenants

Own-
ors. Share.

38.8] 12] 005] 31.6] 28.9

Continental United States...

South Atlantic diyision ..
Northern South Atlentie
Southern South Atlantic

South Central Givision .
‘Eastern South Centr:
‘Western South Central

NUMBER OF FARMS OPERATED BY—
DIVISION. ‘Tenants.

au | Mane

lasses, || WME) "gers,
au. | Cash. || share.
Continental U. § ....| 767,764 i 206,617 | 1,824 } 569, 428 |) 274,668 | 284,760
South Atlantic division.....| 238,871 || 85,116 | 970 | 202, 785 || 100, 597 | 102, 188
Northern South Atlantic.| 62,254 |) 80/690 | 368 | 21/187 ||” 7/607 | “13,680
Southern South Atlantic.| 236,617 | 64417 | 602 | 1811598 || 92; 990 | 88,608
South Central division ....| 451,790 || 101,560 ) 628 | sg, 616 || 271,105 | 178, 12
‘astern South Central | 267,895 |) 49; 911 | 324 | 217/680 || 135,104 | "93,556
Western South Central..| 188,904 |} 1649 | 209 | 181/956 || 46;001 | 85,900

PER CENT OF THE TOTAL IMPROVED
‘ACREAGE IN FARMS OF —

DIVISION. ‘Tenants.
‘Mana-

ers, | gers. |,

Cash,

Continental United States... 27.8) 0.6] 7.6} 35.7] 85.9

South Atlantic division ... 23.6
Northern South Atlant! 44.6
Southern South Atlantic 19.6

South Central diyision m4
‘astern South Central 20.9
‘Western South Central 86.1.



FARMS OPERATED BY NEGROES.

operated by negroes; the average size of these farms |
ranged from 50 to 97 acres, or, excluding Kansas, from
50 to 56 acres, and the percentage of improved land |
ranged from 68 to about 81. It is worthy of note that
these five states were the only ones in this division in
which negroes formed more than 1 per cent of the total
population in 1900.

Farms classified by area.—The following table shows
by geographic divisions the classification of farms of
negro farmers according to area:

Tanz IV.—Farms of negro farmers, classified according to area: 1900.

NUMBER OF FARMS IN BACH CLASS.

Conti: |} 1, .
forth South | North | South 7
cxass o vanns. | BeR!4l | atinntic | atiantic | Gentzal | Gentral | Wester
States. division. | division. |division.|division.| .
All farms ......| 746,715 287, 933

‘Under 8 acres 4,448 ,
, 831 270 |
119,710 40) 416
343,173 120, 979
50 and under 109 .2°2:) 184, 228 54, 192
100 and under 176 682 556
175 and under 260, 16, 585 8,201
260 and under 600. 8,715 4,086
600.and under 1,000 :] 2,007 1,065,
1,000 and over..'..... 486 228 {3 7

PER CENT WHICH THE NUMBER OF FARMS IN EACH CLASS FORMS

71

The usual farm of the negro has an area of from 20
to 50 acres—the “‘ one-mule farm”—requiring the labor
of a man and his family and one mule. Nearly half of
the farms operated by negroes in the country in 1900
were of this size. Next in number, were farms of from
50 to 100 acres—the “‘ two-mule farms”—forming 18 per
cent of the total. Then came farms of from 10 to 20
acres, followed by the farms of from 100 to 175 acres.
Farms under 20 acres, representing largely market
gardens and the smaller cotton farms, constituted 23.4
per cent of the total number; farms of 100 acres and
over, 12.7 per cent.

In the South Atlantic division the farms showed
greater diversity of area than in the South Central, the
concentration in the group of 20 to 50 acres being much
less marked in the former division, while the proportion
of farms under 10 acres and of farms over 50 acres
was considerably greater. In the North Atlantic divi-
sion a still smaller proportion of the comparatively few
farms operated by negroes came within the area group
20 to 50 acres, while farms of less than 10 acres and
those of over 50 acres were relatively more numerous;
in the North Central states the distribution of the farms
of negroes by area approached more closely to that in

OF THE TOTAL NUMBER. the South.
‘All farms .. |} 100.0] 100.0 100.0} 100.0 In respect to size of farms the Western division dif-
Under 8 acres a8 ae 19 o8 3.9 | fersgreatly from the other four, the mostusual size being
5. ¥ ¥ 4 17
16.0 Ha) 140 we 71 | from 100 to 175 acres. But the actual number of farms
a9] te) a2 ¥ Ws | saa .
80 ios) 1g8 173 2.5 | in this division operated by negroes in 1900 was small.
sof, 1 9.9 81 401 T
22 1 2.9 18 6.2 Value of farm property.—The value of proper
1. 9 4 : z zl i is eiven ii i
a3 3 ‘4 us {| farms operated by negroes in 1900 is given in detail in
or : OL ot 21 | the following table:
Taste V.—VALUE OF PROPERTY ON FARMS OF NEGRO FARMERS: 1900.
YALUE OF FARM PROPERTY. yon onyn or torarvatue ov Att!) venage VALUE YR PAR.
ILand ana| | ‘Land and|
ros, Tan ana rmple Ta al RS | aoe ll a2 RBI anal BBS |.
1. . ings, i | ments’ | Buita-| ive || fam |) "ments 7 ive
Tou | MENG (Gs |Bonatgr| hha tivesooe,| ems Ae) aad | ise | ge | el Panga) Tae
Tags). ‘build- "| toy. erty. || build- try.
ings). | . ings).
Continental U.S-..|¢499, 941, 254.|'g304, 242, 997 [871, 902, 265 |818, 850, 757 |884, 980, 215 3.8 17.0|| $000 | sit | $96 95 | sud
North Atlanti 4,776,245 || 2,664,718 | 1,465,500 | _ 206,77 | 439, 250 43] 92] 2,72] 1,53] a2]  u7| 250
South Atianti 162,841, 284 |] 100, 251,076 | 26) 658, 879 | 5,379,329 | 24, 052, 000 3.8] 148|| bao goo} 98} “a | Be
North Central. 24, 608, 046 || 17,926,162 | 21 983, 377 3,125 | 8, 025, 381 2.9] 123 |) 2,008 || 1,403 | 239 59] 247
South Central 806,665, 271 |} 196, 682,286 | 40, 784,135 | 12, 014, 612 | 57, 234,258 3.9] 187|| "590 443 “OL 2| 139
Western. 1,050, 89 || "718,775 | ‘110,874 |" 38,014 |” ’ 184, 726, 34) 17.6) 3117 |] 2,138] 939 tor) 548
i



94 NEGROES IN THE UNITED STATES.

farmers, without greatly affecting those for negro
farmers, comparatively few of whom are found in those
divisions. For each race the average values are in most
instances somewhat higher in the South Central division
than in the South Atlantic. Buildings form an excep-
tion to this statement, their average value being con-
siderably lower in the South Central than in the South
Atlantic for white farmers, and slightly lower for negro
farmers, This may be due in some measure to climatic
differences between the two sections.

The negro is preeminently the small farmer, cul-
tivating 50 acres while the white farmer has 160.
The contrast is greatest in the South Central states,
where the inclusion of the large cattle ranches in the
state of Texas increases the average acreage for white
farmers without perceptibly affecting that for negroes.
In some of the Northern and Western states the con-
trast in size between farms of negroes and of whites is
not very great; and ina fewinstances— Vermont, the two
Dakotas, and New Mexico—the negro operates a larger
average acreage than the white man.’ But there are
only a handful of negro farmers in any of these states.

In most of the Southern states the farms of negroes
haye a much larger proportion of improved acreage
than those of the whites, and accordingly the difference
between the two races, indicated by the averages in
Table xxxrx, is less marked for the improved than for
the total acreage. This perhaps is a natural result of
the fact that the negro farms are small and that three-
fourths of them are rented farms, while the proportion
of rented farms for white farmers is less than one-third.
The difference in the per cent of improved acreage is
shown for the main geographic divisions and the South-
ern states in the following table:

Taste XL.—Per cent of improved acreage in farms of white and of
negro farmers: 1900.

Farms of| Farms of
white. | negro
farmers, | farmers,

DIVISION AND STATE OR TERRITORY.

Continental United States. 49.0 611

In the average value of farms, as shown in Table
XXXIX, the contrast between the two races is more marked
than in the average acreage, the white man’s farm being
six times as valuable as the negro’s in the United States
asa whole, and seldom less than twice as valuable in any
individual state. . In this comparison the negro farmer
makes a nearer approach to equality with the white
farmer in the North and West than in the South, the
value of the white man’s farm being about three and
one-half times that of the negro’s in the South Atlantic
division, three times in the South Central, two and one-
half times in the North Central, two and one-third times
in the Western, and one and three-fifth times in the
North Atlantic. But measured by the yalue of products
the difference between the negro’s farm and the white
man’s is less marked in the South than in the North,
the average value per farm of products not fecl to live
stock being rather more than one and one-half times as
great for white as for negro farmers in cach of the two
Southern divisions, but almost twice as great in the
North Atlantic division and more than twice as great in
the North Central and in the Western divisions.

The only item in Table xxxrx which shows a higher
average for negroes than for whites is the value per
acre of products not fed to live stock. ‘This exception
is doubtless due in large measure to the fact that
negroes haye, as we have seen, much smaller farms with
higher percentages of improved acreage. But even if
the average be computed on the basis of the improved
acreage alone, it is still somewhat larger for the negro
than for the white farmer, notwithstanding the fact that
this computation gives the white farmer the advantage
resulting from crediting the improved acreage with the
products of the unimproved. He gains more by this
than the negro does, because his unimproved acreage is
relatively greater. The results of the two computa-
tions are presented in the following table:

Tapiw XLI—Average value per acre of products not fed to live stock
on farms operated by white and by negro farmers: 1900,

South Atlantie division .

B

!

rgi
West Virginia
North Carolina.

BSSBSsRaR

id

ERESSERSS
BSSSSeR¢

‘North Atlantic division,
North Central divisior
‘Western division ....

SES

See Table 78,

|.vtinugn onronar| avenace vox a3

ACREAGE, PROVED ACREAGE,
DIVISION. a 7 7
Farms of| Farms of || Farms of] Farms of
white |’ negro || white |" negro
farmers. | farmers, |] farmers, | farmers,
South Atlantic. 3.66 | ~~
South Central Sa) | SB) ae

ao} on

Ratio of value of products to value of farm property.—
In proportion to their size, then, the farms of negroes
are more productive than those of white men, They
are also ‘more’ productive in proportion to their value,
as is shown by the following table giving for white and
for negro farmers the percentage which the value of
products not fed to live stock forms of the total value
of farm property:


7

Taste L—Crmparison of negro farm homes with all negro homes:

1900.
: - Per cent
jan Farm |farmhomes
niyistox, | homes. | homes, | form of all
| | homes,
| i
: 44

North Ad
South
North

These figures show a high percentage of negro farm
population in the two Southern divisions, which natu-
rally produces a high percentage in continental United
States as a whole. In the other divisions—especially
the North Atlantic and Western—the percentage is
small, indicating that outside the South the negroes are
to a large extent congregated in cities, and are engaged
in pursuits other than farming.

Miuher and acreage of farms, by geographic divi-
xioux,—The statistics of number and acreage of farms
operated by negroes in continental United States are
given by geographic divisions in Table 1. The totals
in this table differ from those given on page 69 by the
exclusion of the two farms which are in the territory
of Hawaii, and therefore outside the limits of conti-
nental United States.

Tapie I1.—Number and acreage of farms of negro farmers: 1900.

NUMBER OF

Panna. ACREAGE,

Per
cent
im-
proy-
ed.

Aver
age
per

farm

Improved. |
|

—| |

51.2 | 23, 902,785 |

LI

North Atlantic
South Atlantic:
North Central.
‘South Cer

Western.

This table confirms very strikingly the fact that the
agricultural operations of negroes are confined almost
entirely to the two Southern divisions of the country,
Jess than 15,000 farms and less than a million acres
being reported from other sections; in other words,
the Southern states contain more than 98 per cent of
all farms operated by negroes and more than 97 per
cent of the total acreage of these farms,

In 1900 the average size of farms operated by negroes
in continental United States was 51.2 acres; and of the
total acreage 61.1 per cent was improved. In the South
Atlantic states the average size was 54.1 acres, while in
the South Central states it was 48.9 acres; and of the
total acreage 57 per cent and 63.8 per cent, respectively,
was improved. Inthe North Central division the farms
were larger and had a greater improved acreage than
either of the Southern divisions, the average size being
64.2 acres, with 71.9 Per cent improved. The few

farms operated hy negroes in the Western division were

70 NEGROES IN THE UNITED STATES.

exceptionally large compared with those in other divi-
sions. The average size was 225.5 acres; nearly one-
third of these farms were live stock farms, however, and
consequently only 27.4 per cent of the total area was
improved. The smallest average was that for the North
Atlantic division, 47.9 acres; this, however, was hardly
smaller than the average for the South Central.

Number and acreage of farms, by states. —The follow-
ing table gives the number of farms operated by negroes,
with the total acreage, for all states containing over 5,000
such farms.

Taste ILL—Number and total acreage of farms of negra farmers in
every state containing more than 5,000 such farms.

FARMS.

stars,

rereent | ou
Per eont | (ae
per

Per cent
‘Number.| of total

per
number, | Ber

+ | Comn-
lative || Number

ofneres, | OF total

number] Ber

Total,

‘Mississippi

Alabama 6 | 2018

South Cai nt | 4

Georgia rt] 52:3

Texas 8 | OLL

Louisiana: 8 | 08.9

North 58; 996 2) 76.1

Arkansas 46, 978 8) Bad

Virginia, 44,795, 0 | ait

Tennessee | 33, $83 15 | 92:9

Florida . BL 68] 987

Kentucky 1, 207 5 | 96.2 6

Marylani 8] 97-0) 74) a70 95.6
-0 | 100.0 || 1,670, 317 10.0

The list of states in this table includes every state in
the South Atlantic and South Central divisions, excopt
West Virginia, the District of Columbia, Delaware,
Oklahoma, and Indian Territory. The District of
Columbia has only 17 negro farmers; West Virginia
has 742; Delaware, 817: 3 Oklahoma, 2,256; and Indian
Territory, 4,097. Outside these Southern divisions
there are 4 states, viz, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, and
Ohio, each of which has between one and two thousand
negro farmers, or more than Delaware; and there is one
state, Missouri, which has 4,950 negro farmers, or moro
than Indian Territory.

Over one-half of all farms cultivated by negroes in
continental United States are found in the four states
of Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia.

In the several states of the two Southern divisions,
excluding the District of Columbia, Indian Territory,
and Oklahoma, the average size of farms operated by
negroes ranged from about 40 acres in Kentucky and
Louisiana to 66 acres in Georgia,’ and the per cent of
the total acreage which was improved rangéd from 49.7
in North Carolina to 76.3 in Kentucky.’ Outside of
Kentucky, however, the percentage of improved land
did not exceed-67.1 in any of these Southern states. In
general, then, from one-half to two-thirds of the land
in the farms operated by negroes in the South was
improved. In the North Central division there were
only five states—Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and
Kansas—which reported, in 1900, more than 1,000 farms

‘See Table 78,
?See Table 60.


THE FARMING BLACK BELT. 97

Map 11.—Southern counties in which there were at least 300 farms
owned and operated by negroes in 1900.

more, and the past and present economic conditions
are not favorable to the laborers. In other counties,
both within and outside the black belt, where the num-
ber of negro owners is large, the direct influence of
educational institutions is manifest, as in Talladega,
Madison, Elmore, Macon, and Lowndes counties.

The farming black belt of Arkansas centers in the
southeastern part, along the Mississippi. The largest
proportion of owners is in the southwest, overlapping
the black belt, while the counties having the largest
absolute number of owners include the black belt coun-
ties, with a few exceptions, and overlap toward the
southwest. This state really exhibits two black belts—
one formed in slavery days, where the precedents among
both employer and employed are unfavorable to land
ownership; another representing western expansion to
new lands, where the number and proportion of owner-
ship is high.

In Delaware and Maryland the proportion of colored
owners of farms is in general much greater than in the
states having a larger negro population—probably be-
cause of better education and greater opportunities.

In Florida the percentage of ownership among negro
farmers is comparatively high throughout the state.
The negro farmers are relatively most numerous, out-
numbering the white, in the region around Tallahassee
and between Ocala and Gainesville. Of the 5 counties
included in this area 3 are also in the area having more
than 50 per cent of owners.

The farming black belt of Georgia has two divisions,
the main part extending in a southwesterly direction
through the center of the state and a smaller part ex-
tending along the sea islands in the southeast. In the
first region the proportion of owners is smaller than
elsewhere in the state; in the latter region it is consid-
erably higher. The difference is due to the sale of
lands on the coast to negroes, on easy terms, after the
war; in the main farming regions, on the other hand,
few negroes have bought land.

9485—Bull. 8—04——7

In Kentucky, where the negro population is pro-
portionately much less than in most of the other states
under discussion, the proportion of negro owners of
farms among all negro farmers is large.

Louisiana shows two areas in which the proportion
of negro farmers is especially high, one bordering on
the Mississippi and the other extending along the Red
river. The proportion of ownership is large only in
the southern portion of the state. It is interesting to
observe, however, that the number of negro farm
owners is largest along the Red river. In that section
greater intelligence and the low price of land have

| encouraged ownership; on the other hand, the negroes

on the plantations along the Mississippi are very
ignorant, and are restricted by a rigorous crop-lien
system.

In Mississippi the area in which is found the largest
proportion of negro farmers includes all the counties
along the Mississippi river, and also a small section on
the eastern border of the state. The counties showing
the largest proportion of ownership do not correspond
with the areas above mentioned, but are in the central
and southern portions. The region of the largest
absolute number of owners centers outside the black
belt, but overlaps it. It should be observed that for
the state as a whole there has been a decided increase
in negro ownership of farms, but it is probable that
the comparatively high price of the rich lands along
the Mississippi—which are owned, moreover, in large
tracts—and the profits accruing to owners from tenant
farmers tend to restrict negro ownership in those locali-
ties where the proportion of negro farmers is highest.

In the northern part of North Carolina, near the
Virginia line, are two counties reporting a majority of
negro farmers. ‘These counties do not show the largest
proportion of ownership, but they are among those
having the largest absolute number of owners; it should
be noted that negro owners of farms are comparatively
numerous throughout the state.

In 28 out of the 41 counties in South Carolina there
are more negro farmers than there are white farmers.
Thus negroes forma majority of the farmers in two-
thirds of the counties in the state. The actual number
of owners and the proportion of ownership are largest
along the coast, where many negroes secured farms as
the result of events growing out of the war.

In Tennessee there are only 3 counties in which negro
farmers constitute more than half of the total number,
although the proportion is large in 4 others. The per-
centage of ownership in these counties is comparatively
low, nearly all the counties in which the per cent
exceeds 50 being in the eastern half of the state.

In Texas the largest proportion of negro farmers is
found in the counties along the Brazos river, and in 3
adjoining counties in the northeastern part of the state.

Most of this territory is comprised in the areas hav-
ing more than 300 negro owners to a county as shown


THE NEGRO FARM OWNER.

laws for the collection of debts in force at that time,
the merchant B was peculiarly liable, between master
and man, to lose all. As the freedman was the actual
producer of the crop, it was clearly to the interest of
the merchant to treat directly with him, if only he
could get some legal grip upon him and his work. On
the other hand, the freedman, seeking to escape from
a condition hardly better than the old slavery, turned
eagerly from the master to the merchant. The ex-
master was not unwilling to enter into any bargain
that insured him a fair income from his land. In the
rearrangements between 1870 and 1880, therefore, the
economic situation became as follows:

A furnished land, shelter, and stock to C. The rent
was either a specific part of the crop, a stated number of
pounds of cotton per acre, or a fixed money rental.
C bought his supplies of food, clothing, etc., directly
from B on credit. B, under a set of laws which grad-
ually grew up, secured himself by a mortgage, which
constituted a second lien on C’s growing crop, A’s rent
being the first lien. B now became a crossroads mer-
chant who knew how to attract and hold his black
customers.

An investigation of the crop-lien system made in con-
nection with the census of 1880 showed that there was
an increasing number of laborers seeking credit to
enable them to do business on their own account as
tenant farmers, and that the majority of such liens were
given by this class, mostly for provisions, but to some
extent also for fertilizers, mules, and farm implements.

The effect upon the freedman of this new crop-lien
system depended on his character and upon attend-
ing circumstances. Thrifty negroes in the hands of
well-disposed landowners and honest merchants early
became independent landholders; shiftless, ignorant
negroes in the power of unscrupulous landowners and
merchants sank to a condition hardly better than
slavery. The mass of negroes between these two ex-
tremes fared as chance and the weather permitted. A
good season with good prices regularly freed a number
from debt and made them landholders; a season poor
either in weather or in prices resulted in ruin to many.

But it is without doubt true that as conditions were
after the war the crop-lien system was the only door of
opportunity opened to the freedmen, and that through
this thousands have advanced from penury to land
ownership.

Present economic conditions.—The situation. of the
farming population in the black belt to-day shows four
well-defined economic classes representing different
stages of advancement toward farm ownership.

There is the farm laborer who receives for his work,
at the end of the year, certain fixed wages, varying
from $30 to $60. Some receive also a house, perhaps
with a garden spot, and have their supplies of food and

9485—Bull. 8046

81

clothing advanced; in such cases the supplies must be
paid for, with interest, out of the money wages.
Another class of laborers are contract hands—i. e.,
laborers paid by the month or year and fed and sup-
plied by the landowner. Such laborers receive from
35 to 40 cents per day during the working season; they
are usually unmarried persons, many being women, and
when they marry they become metayers, or, occasion-
ally, renters.

The cropper is entirely without capital, even in the
limited sense of food or money to keep him from seed-
time to harvest; all he furnishes is labor, while the
landowner furnishes house, land, stock, tools, and seed.
At the end of the year the cropper gets a stipulated
portion of the crop; out of his share, however, comes
payment, with interest, for food and clothing advanced
him during the year. Thus we have a laborer without
capital and without wages, and an employer whose cap-
ital consists largely of food and other supplies advanced
to laborers—an arrangement unsatisfactory to both
parties, and in vogue usually on poor land with hard-
pressed owners.

Above the cropper comes the metayer, or share ten-
ant, who works the land on his own responsibility,
paying rent in cotton and supported by the crop-lien
system. The great mass of the negro population is
found in this class. After the war this plan attracted
the freedmen on account of its larger freedom and its
possibilities for making a surplus. If the rent fixed
was reasonable, this was an incentive to the tenant to
strive; on the other hand, if the rent was too high or
if the land deteriorated, the result was to discourage
and check the efforts of the tenant.

The renter for fixed money rental belongs in the
highest of the emerging classes. The sole advantages
possessed by this class are their freedom to choose
their crops and the increased responsibility which
comes through having money transactions. While
some of the renters differ little in condition from the
metayers, yet on the whole they are a more intelligent
and responsible class, and are the ones who eventually
become landowners.

THE NEGRO FARM OWNER.

Proportion of owned farms.—Of the 746,715 farms
operated by negroes in continental United States in
1900, 21 per cent were owned entirely, and an additional.
4.2 per cent owned in part, by the farmers operating
them; in other words, forty years after emancipation
95.2 per cent or about one-fourth of all negro farmers
had. become landholders.

Of the total negro and mixed farm families reported
in 1890, 120,788, or 21.7 per cent owned their farms.
In 1900 there were 187,799 farms owned by negroes,
which was 25.2 per cent of all farms operated by


84 NEGROES IN THE UNITED STATES.

continental United States, 96.2 for the South Atlantic”

states, and 36.9 for the South Central states.

Value of farm property owned by negroes.—The total
yalue of the farm property in the three classes of farms
operated by colored owners in the United States (in-
cluding Hawaii) was $181,116,048. “This sum includes
the value of farms, live stock, and implements on farms
owned and operated by Indians, Chinese, Japanese,
and Hawaiians, as well as by negroes. After making
an allowance for such values, if an estimate of the
probable total farm wealth of the negro farmers, June
1, 1900, be desired, the value of the live stock on rented
farms, of which a large share generally belongs to the
tenants, should be added. That value for the colored
tenants was $57,167,206. Adding this sum to the pre-
ceding total, it appears that the value, June 1, 1900, of
the farm property belonging to negroes was approxi-
mately $200,000,000, or a little less than $300 for each
negro farmer.”!

This estimate, however, takes no account of property
owned by negroes and rented out to either negroes or
whites. In the state of Georgia, for instance, according
to the tax returns the land held by colored owners in
rural districts in 1900 comprised 1,075,073 acres, while
according to the Twelfth Census the acreage of land
owned by colored farmers was 871,776, or more than
200,000 less. A similar, though smaller, discrepancy
appeared in Virginia. It is probable that most of this
difference represents land sublet by negro owners to
tenants, and accordingly reported in the census among
the farms of tenants; therefore we are probably jus-
tified in adding 15 per cent to the above estimated
value of property owned by negro farmers in con-
tinental United States, thus bringing the total up to
$230,000,000.

The value of the land in farms of all colored owners
in continental United States in 1900—including the
value of the supplementary land rented, which, if we
assume it to be of the same average value as the
rest, amounted to about $7,500,000—1was $102,029,601.
While some of the land is very good, most of it is poor,
being often practically worn out or disadvantageously
situated as regards a market.

Of the 206,517 farms of colored owners in continental
United States in 1900, 901,106 had buildings, and the
value of these was $28,662,167. For farms which had
buildings, the average value per farm was $143. This
would mean, in the South, a log or plank house of two
or three rooms, and two or three outhouses of various
kinds.

The value in 1900 of implements and machinery on
these farms amounted to $8,352,975. The negro’s tools
are few and old-fashioned, a plow and a hoe being the
indispensables, However, the farms of negro owners
are Somewhat better equipped than those of tenants,
having wagons and here and there a cotton gin, and
perhaps a Teaper, though that is rarer,

"Twelfth Census, Vol. V, page ox.

The value of live stock on these farms in 1900 was
$40,758,896. The proportion of this total reported by
Indians is greater than their proportion of any other
item of farm property, but the negroes own considera-
ble live stock.

Products and expenditures on owned farms.—The
gross value of products of 1899 on farms of colored
owners in continental United States was $67,182,380;
on subtracting the value of products fed to live stock,
we have a net value of $57,422,983, or 31.9 per cent of
the total value of farm property.

In 1899 colored farm owners expended for labor
over $2,500,000, or nearly $13 per farm. At prevail-
ing rates of wages this means the employment of a
man, to hoe or pick cotton, or to plant and gather
other crops, for about one month in the year. This in-
dicates that the owned farm of the negro is primarily
a tract suitable for cultivation by one family. ‘This
statement is partially modified, however, by the fact
that considerable land is rented out by owners ; more-
over, it is probable that on the small farms very little
labor is hired, the average being maintained by consid-
erable hiring on the larger farms. It is noteworthy
that among colored farmers more labor is hired, on the
average, by colored tenants than by owners—probably
because the farms of tenants, although smaller, have a
larger average acreage of improved land than those of
owners.

The expenditures for fertilizers on farms of colored
owners in 1899 amounted to over a million dollars, thus
averaging about $6 per farm.

FARM STATISTICS BY TENURE.

Farms of colored farmers classified by tenure.—In
comparing the value, acreage, etc., of the farms of the
negro farmers in the different classes of tenuro it is
necessary, for reasons already explained, (see page 82)
to make use of figures which include farms operated by
Mongolian and Indian farmers, The relative import-
ance of the negro farmers as compared with the other
colored farmers is shown for the several geographic
divisions of the United States in the following table:

Tapim XXI—Number and acreage of farms of negro, and of Indian
and Mongolian farmers: 1900.

A.—NUMBER,
nS RT

- Ee
pom, | fgg | na"
Per cent Per cent
Number. of total || Number. | ‘of total

Continental U. ,

South Atlantic
North Central
South Central.
Western.